Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Departmental monetary thresholds under the National Litigation Policy apply to each appeal separately; the term "case" is to be read as each appeal being an individual case, so values of distinct appeals arising from a composite tribunal order cannot be aggregated to meet the filing limit. The High Court applied the departmental instruction and held that only one appeal (C.E.A.No.18 of 2025) met the prescribed monetary limit; the remaining departmental appeals were held not maintainable and dismissed for failure to satisfy the threshold.
Departmental monetary thresholds under the National Litigation Policy apply to each appeal separately; the term "case" is to be read as each appeal being an individual case, so values of distinct appeals arising from a composite tribunal order cannot be aggregated to meet the filing limit. The High Court applied the departmental instruction and held that only one appeal (C.E.A.No.18 of 2025) met the prescribed monetary limit; the remaining departmental appeals were held not maintainable and dismissed for failure to satisfy the threshold.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
