Supreme Court of India held that conditions under Section 45 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is applicable to Anticipatory Bail application under section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation as on the date of allotment letters, and not the date of execution of agreement to sell, should be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that there is difference of more than 1 ½ year between the date of the assessment order and date of dispatch of the assessment order. Further, order was passed without granting of personal hearing. Such impugned order is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on the basis of legal fiction of section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that appellant being a government undertaking is required to take necessary permission for filing of an appeal from its head office. Delay in getting the permission resulted into delay in filing of an appeal. Such not intentional or mala fide delay should be condoned.
Bombay High Court held that failure on the part of the assessee is a prerequisite for invoking jurisdiction for reopening of assessment. In absence of the same, reopening of assessment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that personal hearing was granted during the time of complete lockdown. Accordingly, non-granting of effective hearing is gross violation of natural justice and hence impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that impugned order was passed after granting of personal hearing, however, personal hearing was granted before replies were received from the assessee is liable to be quashed on the grounds of principles of natural justice.
CESTAT Delhi held that as the goods is question are Aluminium Alloy Coils are exempted from the Anti-Dumping Duty as per clause (vii) of notification no. 23/2017-Cus (ADD) dated 16.05.2017
Madras High Court held that it is seen from the impugned assessment order that no personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
