Appellate jurisdiction over baggage imports is excluded, requiring confiscation challenges involving passenger-carried gold to proceed by statutory re...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority dispu...
Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) depends on whether payments exceeding the prescribed daily limit were made to a single person, not merely on a voucher exceeding that limit. A consolidated voucher may record separate payments to multiple persons, each within the limit, and therefore may not establish a contravention. Supporting material omitted by an erstwhile tax consultant was admitted as additional evidence because the first appellate order had been passed without it. The ex parte appellate order and cash-payment disallowance were set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, with all contentions left open.
Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) depends on whether payments exceeding the prescribed daily limit were made to a single person, not merely on a voucher exceeding that limit. A consolidated voucher may record separate payments to multiple persons, each within the limit, and therefore may not establish a contravention. Supporting material omitted by an erstwhile tax consultant was admitted as additional evidence because the first appellate order had been passed without it. The ex parte appellate order and cash-payment disallowance were set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, with all contentions left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
