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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
