Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
