Kerala High Court held that as the gold claimed by the petitioner, is already assessed in the name of the husband of the petitioner, and the proceedings in respect of the same are concluded, the petitioner cannot make a further claim in respect of the same. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 20 stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed. Thus, retention of seized property without following procedure stipulated under section 20 of PMLA is not justifiable.
Delhi High Court has expressed some concerns in respect of the definition of the jewellery in proposed Rule 2(viii) of the Baggage Rules as also the monetary cap being retained, albeit with modification, under proposed Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in case of money laundering and fake investment scheme allowed on account of delayed trial and there being no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.
NCLAT Delhi held that the core issue of any insolvency proceeding is debt and default. Accordingly, when debt and default is undisputedly established, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in accepting the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP.
Madras High Court held that Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not justified in remanding the matter since authority has recorded a clear finding that explanations offered by assessee were very satisfactory. Accordingly, order remanding the matter quashed and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since declared assessable value of imported black pepper accepted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and penalties-imposed u/s. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act quashed.
Delhi High Court held that penalty imposed on Courier Agency due to non-exercise of due-diligence since courier agency failed to notice that commercial goods were being sent under disguise of gift. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly assailing validity of final assessment order dated 30.06.2022 on the ground of limitation. It is contested that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 23.03.2022, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed final assessment order on 23.06.2022.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty as imposed by Competition Commission of India [CCI] on account of bid-rigging in soil testing tenders invited by Development of Agriculture, Government of Utter Pradesh against several companies and directors upheld.
