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...
Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.
Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
