Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
CESTAT examined the seizure of 3998.83 grams of gold from two individuals traveling by bus, determining the legality of the customs action. The tribunal found the department failed to establish reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Critical procedural deficiencies were identified, including non-compliance with Section 138B and lack of concrete evidence proving smuggling. The absence of foreign markings on gold and failure to substantiate smuggling claims led the tribunal to conclude that the seizure was unsustainable. The burden of proof under Section 123 was not effectively discharged by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the seizure and potential penalties.
CESTAT examined the seizure of 3998.83 grams of gold from two individuals traveling by bus, determining the legality of the customs action. The tribunal found the department failed to establish reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Critical procedural deficiencies were identified, including non-compliance with Section 138B and lack of concrete evidence proving smuggling. The absence of foreign markings on gold and failure to substantiate smuggling claims led the tribunal to conclude that the seizure was unsustainable. The burden of proof under Section 123 was not effectively discharged by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the seizure and potential penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
