Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.