Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Jagadish Nangineni Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Conclusion: Since ED alleged that both assessees were actively involved in the planning and execution of all the transactions involving repeated transfer of funds and were accused of serious economic offences, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail to assessees at this stage would certainly result […]
While before grant of bail the Public Prosecutor was required to be given an opportunity to oppose the plea for bail and that where the Public Prosecutor opposed such plea the Court could order release of the accused on bail only after recording a satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be released was not guilty of the offence he was accused of and that while on bail he was not likely to commit any offence.
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).
