Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
