Allahabad High Court held that valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent for making reassessment under section 147. Accordingly, non-service of notice on registered email ID is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Jammu & Kashmir HC held that that it was not open to the respondent-Enforcement Directorate to proceed against the petitioner in respect of offences under PMLA once the FIR in respect of the predicate offences had been stayed by the High Court.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. Thus, court directed petitioner to institute suit in a civil court to establish right over disputed property.
Kerala High Court held that all the projects which received occupancy certificate after 01.05.2017 are covered within the purview of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA Act, 2016) and mandatory registration as proved u/s. 20(1) of K-RERA needs to be obtained.
Supreme Court rejected the bail application of Shri Satyendar Kumar Jain and others involved in the case of money laundering as appellants have not complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue received from various hotel owners for providing various centralized services cannot be treated as fees for included services (FIS) either under Article 12(4)(a) or 12(4)(b) of the India-US tax treaty. Thus, in absence of PE in India, the same is not taxable.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of the agreement by no stretch of imagination could be the date of sale of the shares by the assessee. As date of contract of sale would be date of fulfilment of conditions specified in share purchase agreement, date of contract will be treated as date of transfer.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition in case of bogus purchases should be limited to the extent of G.P. rate on purchases. Accordingly, matter remanded with direction to reduce addition only to the extent of profit margin involved in such purchases.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, without any fresh and tangible material, merely on the basis of change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that miscellaneous services rendered by air travel agent like planning travel itinerary of clients, etc. are covered within the ambit of Air Travel Agent and cannot be classified under Business Support Service.
