Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Imported goods described as a cross-ply unidirectional laminate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibres for ballistic protection were held classifiable under CTH 540730, not CTH 39201099, because Chapter 54 and the relevant HSN notes more accurately covered the product than the plastics heading in Chapter 39. The resulting differential customs duty demand with interest was sustained. However, the Tribunal held that a mere dispute over tariff classification did not by itself establish misdeclaration under section 111(m), where the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry was not in dispute. On that basis, confiscation and the consequential penalty under section 112 were set aside.
Imported goods described as a cross-ply unidirectional laminate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibres for ballistic protection were held classifiable under CTH 540730, not CTH 39201099, because Chapter 54 and the relevant HSN notes more accurately covered the product than the plastics heading in Chapter 39. The resulting differential customs duty demand with interest was sustained. However, the Tribunal held that a mere dispute over tariff classification did not by itself establish misdeclaration under section 111(m), where the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry was not in dispute. On that basis, confiscation and the consequential penalty under section 112 were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.