The tribunal ruled that the amount of penalty under Section 13(1) of FEMA is discretionary and depends on facts and circumstances of each case. As the adjudicating authority had already imposed significant penalties after evaluating the evidence, no grounds existed for enhancement.
PMLA Tribunal upheld attachment of wife’s property linked to fraud proceeds, ruling assets can be attached even if the owner is not accused in the scheduled offence.
The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 9A is not required when a charitable trust sets off earlier years’ excess application against current year income. The set-off is allowable as application of income under Section 11.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Vigneshwara Transport Company (Karnataka High Court) SCN u/s 74 GST Valid even if based on Material from allegedly Illegal Search or from another Commissionerate-Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act are independent adjudicatory proceedings & are not dependent on validity of […]
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
The High Court set aside an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer. It held that once the department knows of the death, proceedings must continue only against the legal heirs.
The Tribunal held that capital gains from property transferred to a spouse without consideration must be taxed in the hands of the transferor under Section 64(1)(iv). Assessing it again in the transferee spouse’s hands was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
