Registration of FIR against assessee for offence under Section 56 of the Act of 2005 was bad, as no FIR for the said non-cognizable offence could be registered and for offence under Section 56, only complaint could be filed by the specified authority / person named in Section 60(a)/(b), that too cognizance can be taken by the jurisdictional criminal court only if previous sanction has already been granted by the competent authority under Section 59 of the Act of 2005.
Minimum guarantee amount which was paid by the distributor for acquiring the exhibition rights of a movie was a fixed expenditure for the distributor that was paid to producers irrespective of the fact whether the film generated a profit or incurs losses. Hence, the payments made by assessee did not fall under the term Royalty and did not attract the provisions of TDS.
Provision for software expenses could not be disallowed by considering it as contingent liability as assessee was required to make provision for all known liabilities and losses as per accounting standards prescribed by ICAI and also by the Central Government under the Income Tax Act even though the amount could not be determined with certainty.
Prosecution launched by the Deputy Director for alleged non disclosure of cash by assessee and his wife was not maintainable and premature one. Merely because the power vested to lodge a complaint by the Deputy Director every case the prosecution could not be launched merely on the conferment of such power without any material. If AO came to the conclusion in a proceedings under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it was open to the Department to initiate penal action as per law.
Since the petition against Enforcement Directorate towards claiming of interest under section 42(3) of FERA towards seized travellers cheques was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 without providing of any reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
Money laundering is a serious economic offence and serious threat to the national economy and national interest and, these offences are committed with cool calculation with the motive of personal gain regardless of the consequences on the society.
Since the authorities had detained the goods without affecting seizure and they had exceeded the time limit for detention of the goods even if it was construed to be a case of seizure therefore, authorities were directed to forthwith release the imported goods of assessee covered by the bill of entry on completion of the necessary legal formalities.
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Interest Income & commitment fees earned by DZ Bank from its Indian clients could be taxed under article 11 instead of article 7 of Indian Branch under Tax Treaty: Conclusion: Interest income and commitment fees earned by DZ Bank from its Indian clients could […]
Designated Committee was directed to consider afresh the declaration of assessee under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as a valid declaration and grant the consequential relief after giving due opportunity of hearing to assessee.
Assessee was not eligible to make a declaration under the ‘Sabka Vishwas Scheme’ with respect to Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) as S.K.O. was an excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Act, 1944 and section 125(1)(h) of the Act 2019/ ‘Sabka Vishwas Scheme’ had specifically excluded persons seeking to make declarations with respect to excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
