Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC addressed the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Canon-II, the Court determined that the challenged SCN dated November 17, 2017, issued by DRI Lucknow Zonal Unit, falls under paragraph 168(vi)(a) of Canon-II. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the SCN will continue before the appropriate adjudicating authority according to law. Given the lengthy pendency of the petition, the petitioner was granted 60 days to respond to the SCN and assured a personal hearing before adjudication. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC addressed the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Canon-II, the Court determined that the challenged SCN dated November 17, 2017, issued by DRI Lucknow Zonal Unit, falls under paragraph 168(vi)(a) of Canon-II. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the SCN will continue before the appropriate adjudicating authority according to law. Given the lengthy pendency of the petition, the petitioner was granted 60 days to respond to the SCN and assured a personal hearing before adjudication. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
