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...
Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied on to support undervaluation unless the procedure in section 138B was followed, including examination of the maker, a finding that admission was in the interests of justice, and an opportunity for cross-examination; absent that compliance, the statements were inadmissible. Electronic material retrieved from a laptop was also rejected because the seizure and handling were doubtful, retrieval was not properly shown to be in the presence of the concerned person, and the section 138C certificate was missing. With the contemporaneous import data wrongly discarded and no reliable proof of extra consideration or misdeclaration, rejection of transaction value, re-determination of duty, confiscation-related findings, and penalties could not stand.
Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied on to support undervaluation unless the procedure in section 138B was followed, including examination of the maker, a finding that admission was in the interests of justice, and an opportunity for cross-examination; absent that compliance, the statements were inadmissible. Electronic material retrieved from a laptop was also rejected because the seizure and handling were doubtful, retrieval was not properly shown to be in the presence of the concerned person, and the section 138C certificate was missing. With the contemporaneous import data wrongly discarded and no reliable proof of extra consideration or misdeclaration, rejection of transaction value, re-determination of duty, confiscation-related findings, and penalties could not stand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.