Orissa High Court held that money recovered from the petitioner constitutes ‘proceeds of crime’ unless the same is disproved at trial. Accordingly, proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] upheld.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that pre-arrest bail application of accused involved in bogus “crypto currency/Emollient Coin” Ponzi Scheme is liable to be dismissed since matter involves heinous offences of economic nature which is being connected with the proceeds of crime.
ITAT Raipur held that concessional tax rate benefit under section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act denied since Form 10ID filed after due date as specified under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that amount received as refund for surrender of Life Insurance Policy cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s 153C for each assessment year and a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that since tests were not conducted in accordance with International Organization Standardization [ISO] the consignment is classifiable as ‘Newsprint’ under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 480180. Accordingly, order set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that order passed without adhering to timelines specified in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 [CBLR] cannot be sustained. Accordingly, consequential relief granted to customs broker and order revoking customs broker licence set aside.
On this foundational principle, the Court is of the view that the continued detention of the applicant cannot be justified on the sole of ground of statutory bar under Section 45. Thus, the Court is inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
Orissa High Court held that writ petition filed beyond the condonable period envisaged under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] the same is not condoned. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere filing of return in response to notice u/s. 148 does not ipso facto justify the invocation of section 270A(2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in substance. Thus, penalty deleted as failure to furnish return u/s. 139(1) doesn’t constitute under-reporting.
