Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
Section 108 statements were held admissible as substantive evidence to connect an implicated person with customs contraventions, and consistent recorded statements, corroborated by collateral material including forensic analysis of a detained mobile phone and other witness statements, furnished adequate material to sustain confiscation and penalties. The court accepted that the petitioner's communications, non-cooperation with summons and implicated statements of a money exchanger established knowledge and participation in improper export; differing relief granted to a passenger (redemption and re-export) did not warrant parity-based relief under equality principles. The petition was dismissed and impugned orders upheld.
Section 108 statements were held admissible as substantive evidence to connect an implicated person with customs contraventions, and consistent recorded statements, corroborated by collateral material including forensic analysis of a detained mobile phone and other witness statements, furnished adequate material to sustain confiscation and penalties. The court accepted that the petitioner's communications, non-cooperation with summons and implicated statements of a money exchanger established knowledge and participation in improper export; differing relief granted to a passenger (redemption and re-export) did not warrant parity-based relief under equality principles. The petition was dismissed and impugned orders upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
