Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
CESTAT adjudicated a customs seizure case involving gold bars transported between cities. The tribunal found the seizure invalid due to lack of substantive evidence. Key determinations included: (1) the primary statement constituted hearsay testimony, (2) no corroborative documentation established smuggling, and (3) the revenue authority failed to demonstrate reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The tribunal rejected revenue's arguments regarding tax invoice dates and procedural objections. Consequently, the tribunal sustained the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders against the individual.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs seizure case involving gold bars transported between cities. The tribunal found the seizure invalid due to lack of substantive evidence. Key determinations included: (1) the primary statement constituted hearsay testimony, (2) no corroborative documentation established smuggling, and (3) the revenue authority failed to demonstrate reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The tribunal rejected revenue's arguments regarding tax invoice dates and procedural objections. Consequently, the tribunal sustained the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders against the individual.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
