Kerala High Court held that condonation of delay in filing of the annual returns only averts penalty and prosecution and doesn’t remove disqualification of the directors of the Company. Accordingly, the writ is disposed of and order is quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that the present appeal filed by benamidar is dismissed since the benamidar was unable to explain the source of funds for acquiring the impugned property. However, the issue regarding beneficial owner is kept open for investigation.
Madras High Court held that money laundering offense is independent from predicate offense. Thus, conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent Prevention of Money Laundering Act prosecution doesn’t constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years not sustainable since there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, reassessment is invalid for non-furnishing of actual reasons recorded.
Madras High Court held that refund claim filed is rightly rejected since differential customs duty was paid voluntarily and not under protest during DRI [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] investigation and closure of proceeding was requested by importer. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that the excess payment over the net book value of assets and liabilities acquired on account of amalgamation is in the nature of ‘goodwill’ and is eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that dismissal of public servant [police officer] on the basis of presumption without department inquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of dismissal is liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that the privy purses and other privileges granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Princely States were the direct outcome of political and contractual arrangements.
Supreme Court held that mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income of their parents.
CESTAT Delhi held that bona fide classification of goods doesn’t result into willful suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period of limitation not justified. Thus, order deserves to be set aside and appeal is allowed.
