Allahabad High Court held that provisions of section 50(2) of PMLA Act empowers Directorate of Enforcement to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation/ proceeding.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on a grossly erroneous factual foundation and also based on mechanically granted approval is untenable in law.
Madras High Court held that CBDT Circular no. 6 of 2023 dated 24.05.2023 giving differential treatment by not extending time for filing application to new trust having provisional approval u/s. 80G is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court held that non-fulfilling obligation under advance license by the transferor doesn’t get extinguish on account of merger/ amalgamation. Such liability has to be discharged by the transferee company.
ITAT Delhi held that receipt of non-competition fee on account of restrictive covenants in respect of restrain on the source of income are capital receipts. Accordingly, the same is not liable to tax.
Bombay High Court held that provisional attachment of bank account illegal as procedure prescribed under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act since proper officer has not passed any order in writing.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service of supply the manpower services provided to educational institutions is exempt from payment of service tax vide Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
CESTAT Allahabad held that value of clearance of dummy unit created for evading payment of duty by availing benefit of exemption provided under exemption notification no 8/2003-CE unsustainable. Accordingly, value of all such units clubbed together for evaluating availability of exemption under notification no. 8/2003-CE.
Kerala High Court held that consideration received by the trustees for relinquishment of trusteeship in the Trust cannot be treated as a capital receipt for the purposes of assessing the same under the head of capital gains.
Delhi High Court held that conjoint reading of Section 56(2)(viib) read along with Rule 11UA(2), the option of choosing a method of valuation of shares stands vested solely in the hands of the assessee.
