Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Diversion of EPCG-imported capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale, transfer, or other impermissible disposal and the export obligation was stated to be fulfilled; DGFT's post facto approval for inclusion of supporting manufacturers bound Customs, and the remaining notification conditions were treated as compliance safeguards, so duty demand was unsustainable. Alleged misdeclaration under s.114AA failed as the notice did not establish any intentional false statement or document, so penalty was not imposable. Extended limitation was rejected because clearance under bond kept the obligation live, enabling issuance of notice upon non-production of discharge certificate, but the Revenue's appeal still failed on merits and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Diversion of EPCG-imported capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale, transfer, or other impermissible disposal and the export obligation was stated to be fulfilled; DGFT's post facto approval for inclusion of supporting manufacturers bound Customs, and the remaining notification conditions were treated as compliance safeguards, so duty demand was unsustainable. Alleged misdeclaration under s.114AA failed as the notice did not establish any intentional false statement or document, so penalty was not imposable. Extended limitation was rejected because clearance under bond kept the obligation live, enabling issuance of notice upon non-production of discharge certificate, but the Revenue's appeal still failed on merits and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
