Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC dismissed the criminal revision challenging the denial of discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 involving gold smuggling. The petitioner contended that prosecution relied solely on co-accused confessions and lacked independent incriminating evidence. The HC held that at the charge-framing stage, courts must only consider prima facie sufficiency of grounds without weighing evidence as in trial. The prosecution produced statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act from both accused, which constitute substantive evidence unlike police confessions under Cr.P.C. Combined with witness testimony and documentary evidence, sufficient material existed to frame charges. The discharge petition dismissal was upheld and revision dismissed.
The HC dismissed the criminal revision challenging the denial of discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 involving gold smuggling. The petitioner contended that prosecution relied solely on co-accused confessions and lacked independent incriminating evidence. The HC held that at the charge-framing stage, courts must only consider prima facie sufficiency of grounds without weighing evidence as in trial. The prosecution produced statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act from both accused, which constitute substantive evidence unlike police confessions under Cr.P.C. Combined with witness testimony and documentary evidence, sufficient material existed to frame charges. The discharge petition dismissal was upheld and revision dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
