Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail, emphasizing arrests under PMLA must be rational, fair, and based on admissible evidence. Statements under Section 50 deemed inadmissible.
A proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee as during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act it was seen that in the ABN Amro Bank account of the assessee a cash amounting to Rs. 20 Lakh was deposited.
NCLAT Delhi held that the Shareholders or Investors in CD are not to be treated as “person aggrieved” under the IBC. Thus, application filed by the shareholder under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not maintainable
ITAT Kolkata held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by AO not having valid jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, assessment proceeding based on an invalid notice is liable to be quashed.
The same was responded to by the Chartered Accountant and on becoming aware of the legal representatives of the deceased-original assessee order dated 30.07.2022 was passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members for A.Y. 2014 – 15, filed its return of income after claiming deduction u/s. 80 P (2) (a) of the income tax act.
Allahabad High Court granted bail to applicant involved in criminal matter based on the principle of ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’ and also concluding that there are no chance of absconding.
ITAT Kolkata held that amendment to section 43CA of the Income Tax Act vide the Finance Act, 2020 via which tolerance band for deviation between actual sale price and stamp duty valuation increased from 5% to 10% has retrospective application.
ITAT Mumbai held that the deeming fiction of section 50C Income Tax Act cannot be extended while working out the written down value (WDV) for the purpose of claiming deprecation on the block of the asset. Thus, disallowance made is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
