Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The HC dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging detention under COFEPOSA Act for gold smuggling from Myanmar. Despite being granted bail in the criminal case, the petitioner's preventive detention was upheld as legally distinct from punitive measures. The court relied on Ameena Begum (2024) which established parameters for judicial review of preventive detention orders. Following Saraswathi Seshagiri (1982), the court affirmed that past smuggling activities could indicate future conduct warranting preventive detention, particularly in international smuggling cases where standard prosecution might be impractical. The court rejected claims of delayed service, confirming the detention order was properly executed on March 11, 2024, and that all constitutional, statutory, and procedural safeguards were followed.
The HC dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging detention under COFEPOSA Act for gold smuggling from Myanmar. Despite being granted bail in the criminal case, the petitioner's preventive detention was upheld as legally distinct from punitive measures. The court relied on Ameena Begum (2024) which established parameters for judicial review of preventive detention orders. Following Saraswathi Seshagiri (1982), the court affirmed that past smuggling activities could indicate future conduct warranting preventive detention, particularly in international smuggling cases where standard prosecution might be impractical. The court rejected claims of delayed service, confirming the detention order was properly executed on March 11, 2024, and that all constitutional, statutory, and procedural safeguards were followed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.