Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5761 to 5780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether the show-cause notice under section 24(1) was validly issued and whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove ownership of seized cash: the tribunal held that written "reasons to believe" were recorded prior to and incorporated in the notice as required by the statute and conveyed to the appellant, so the notice was valid; on the substantive issue the appellant failed to produce conclusive, legally admissible evidence (books of account, reliable third-party proof) to establish ownership or source of the cash, rendering explanations inconsistent and after-thoughts-consequence: the impugned order was upheld and no interference granted. - AT
Whether the show-cause notice under section 24(1) was validly issued and whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove ownership of seized cash: the tribunal held that written "reasons to believe" were recorded prior to and incorporated in the notice as required by the statute and conveyed to the appellant, so the notice was valid; on the substantive issue the appellant failed to produce conclusive, legally admissible evidence (books of account, reliable third-party proof) to establish ownership or source of the cash, rendering explanations inconsistent and after-thoughts-consequence: the impugned order was upheld and no interference granted. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
