Since there was no material to proceed against assessee under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and High Court should quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue, would be an abuse of the process of the Court and that the ends of justice required that the proceedings be required to be quashed.
In re Mr. Pranshu Bhutra (SEBI) Conclusion: Due to insider trading of the scrip of Infosys Limited (INFY), SEBI issued the Interim Order in the matter of insider trading in shares of Infosys Limited in order to protect the interests of investors and the integrity of the securities market, in exercise of the powers conferred […]
The property was conveyed to assessee after the death of his father in 1955, i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1950. Accordingly, the property belonged to HUF of assessee and not to assessee-individual. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 147 for difference in sale consideration and fair market value of property itself was liable to be quashed.
Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
The suit for malicious prosecution having been filed on 11th April 2008 which was within the period of one year, was therefore well within the limitation prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit was well within limitation, as the period of limitation under Section 3 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1962, r/w Entry 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, would have ended only on 12th April 2008, which was one day after the date when the suit for malicious prosecution was presented by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Since the specified persons possessed the requisite qualifications and rendered the services, therefore, it cannot be held that payment of salary to the specified persons was unreasonable particularly when no comparable case was cited by AO. Therefore, the exemption could not be denied under section 13(1)(c). Held: […]
Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The allegation of AO that the opening stock of assessee was an unexplained income of the assessee as such stock in trade was not in existence seem to be unsustainable because why a person would show and on accounted opening stock of the magnitude of ₹ 51,000,000 just to on a meager net profit of ₹ 875,000/–.
Payments were made to various state government departments for delay in submission of form or document or compliance with the procedures, in which case, the payment was not for violation of law but compensation for not complying with law and was allowable expenditure as normal business expenditure u/s 37(1).
Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct.
