COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE) vs. M/S. AAFLOAT TEXTILES (I) P.LTD.&ORS

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Cestat Was To The Order Of Commissioner Of Customs Who Confirmed The Duty Demand Of

bogus SILs and Shri Garodia used to sell them in market and give them a premium of 3%. 4. The demand was confirmed under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act. The stand of the revenue that since the licenses were forged and were void, the buyer cannot have better title than the seller. CESTAT in appeal

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

purchase and sale. It is true, as the High Court has observed, that this information could have been acquired by the Income Tax Officer if he had exercised due diligence at the time of the original assessment itself. It does not appear, however,   that   the   attention   of   the   Income   Tax   Officer   was directed by anything before him to the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

bogus entries of name-lenders. iii. If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section