NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
