In a recent case, Delhi High Court ruled that proviso to Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is an exception for women, exempting them from satisfying the twin conditions of Section 45. The court held that sub-classifying women under different categories and applying twin conditions would violate Article 14 of Constitution. The applicant, accused in a complaint case related to the Unitech Group, was granted bail after undergoing extensive investigations and custody for over 20 months.
Explore landmark ruling in Citibank N.A Vs S.K. Ojha case by Bombay High Court, confirming that post-Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme determination, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to reopen tax assessments under Section 143 of Income Tax Act. Unearth key insights from this case setting a precedent for businesses under KVSS.
ITAT Bangalore held that if two out of the three preceding assessment year the comparable has earned profits it cannot be held a persistent loss making company. Hence, persistent loss filter can be applied only if there is loss in three successive assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that membership fees paid for a key person of a company are allowable as business expenditure. The case involved the disallowance of club membership fees paid to Cricket Club of India.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the interest subsidy received under the technology upgradation fund scheme is considered a capital receipt, even if it is credited against interest expenditure in the books of account.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
Gujarat High Court held that order cancelling GST registration passed on the basis of very vague and cryptic show cause notice is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
NCLAT Chennai held that the sub-Contractor, would not have any contractual relationship with the owner and would not be entitled to prefer any `Claims’ against the owner
Bombay High Court held that mere filing of an application under section 7(1) of the IB Code is not enough to invoke the bar of section 238 of the IB Code.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee being non-resident, income has been invested in India and not arisen in India.
