Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT held that the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT held that the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
