SC held that voluntary confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act are admissible and substantive evidence. While affirming conviction, SC reduced sentence considering the four-decade delay and custody already undergone.
The Tribunal held that once retail liquor sales were accepted and income estimated, cash deposits used for liquor purchases could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. The addition was deleted due to recorded business transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed three appeals for statistical purposes by setting aside CIT(A) orders and directing fresh adjudication, subject to deposit of ₹5,000 per case in the PM National Relief Fund.
The Court held that financial assistance equivalent to pay and allowances under the 2006 Rules must be deducted from Motor Vehicles Act compensation. Only overlapping benefits can be adjusted to avoid double payment.
While declining to interfere with the embankment project, the SC permitted petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to authorities. Construction of the project was not restrained.
Highlighting repeated flooding and large-scale public benefit, the Court refused to stop the embankment project. It concluded that the scheme was sanctioned after detailed study and served public interest.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s plea after noting that earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions covered the issue under Section 36(1)(viia). The High Court had rightly found no substantial question of law.
The Court held that interest income on securities accrues on the due date of payment and not on a daily basis. As the issue was covered by binding precedents, no substantial question of law arose.
The Court held that teaser content indicated possible non-application of mind by CBFC and potential communal disharmony. It directed reconsideration of the revision petition and stayed release for 15 days.
The Tribunal held that a prior judicial decision cannot be classified as additional evidence under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules. Since the issue was already settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the remand order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
