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...
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
