Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Cash recovered from the appellant's possession was held to be tangible movable property and capable of constituting benami property under the PBPT Act, which covers movable as well as immovable assets. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a benami transaction requires three parties, holding that a benamidar and beneficial owner alone are sufficient under the statutory scheme. It further found that Section 2(9)(D) applied because the persons allegedly providing the cash were not traceable and the source of consideration remained unexplained. The appellant's willingness to offer the amount to tax did not bar PBPT proceedings, as the Act operates independently of the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Cash recovered from the appellant's possession was held to be tangible movable property and capable of constituting benami property under the PBPT Act, which covers movable as well as immovable assets. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a benami transaction requires three parties, holding that a benamidar and beneficial owner alone are sufficient under the statutory scheme. It further found that Section 2(9)(D) applied because the persons allegedly providing the cash were not traceable and the source of consideration remained unexplained. The appellant's willingness to offer the amount to tax did not bar PBPT proceedings, as the Act operates independently of the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
