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...
Declared value was rejected where the imported stock-lot goods were found to be about 7% higher in quantity than declared, and that discrepancy, with the importer's acceptance of enhanced value, justified doubt about transaction value; re-determination under Rule 12 and Rule 5 was sustained. The Tribunal held that the import had not yet reached the post-clearance stage, so the matter was one of re-assessment under section 17, not recovery of short-paid duty under section 28, and that the section 28 basis was legally incorrect. It further held that goods merely liable to confiscation are not automatically confiscable, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine, and the consequential section 114A penalty.
Declared value was rejected where the imported stock-lot goods were found to be about 7% higher in quantity than declared, and that discrepancy, with the importer's acceptance of enhanced value, justified doubt about transaction value; re-determination under Rule 12 and Rule 5 was sustained. The Tribunal held that the import had not yet reached the post-clearance stage, so the matter was one of re-assessment under section 17, not recovery of short-paid duty under section 28, and that the section 28 basis was legally incorrect. It further held that goods merely liable to confiscation are not automatically confiscable, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine, and the consequential section 114A penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
