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...
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
