The case examined whether sanction by JCIT was valid for reassessment beyond four years. The court held that such approval was invalid, making the notices unsustainable.
The case addressed whether a special audit can be ordered without establishing complexity or defects in accounts. The Court examined whether mechanical invocation of Section 142(2A) without proper justification is legally sustainable.
The Court examined whether a complaint arising from a family dispute can be entertained in misconduct proceedings. It held that such complaints are maintainable if they disclose professional misconduct.
The court ruled that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised in the written statement. Late objections cannot be entertained and are deemed waived.
The Court found no separate evidence linking the employee to wrongdoing beyond what was considered for the employer. It ruled that penalty cannot be sustained without independent justification.
The Court examined whether delay in completing disciplinary inquiry invalidates proceedings. It held that Rule 14(24) timelines are directory and do not automatically nullify proceedings without proof of prejudice.
The Court examined whether additions based on a seized document were valid. It held that lack of investigation and inconsistencies rendered the additions unsustainable.
The issue involved ex parte orders passed after SCNs were uploaded in a manner not effectively communicated. The Court held that such service did not ensure proper notice and denied opportunity to respond. The key takeaway is that effective communication of notices is essential for valid adjudication.
The issue involved delay in formal arrest despite recovery of contraband at the airport. The Court held that failure to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours resulted in illegal detention. The key takeaway is that procedural safeguards on arrest must be strictly followed even in NDPS cases.
Delhi High Court held that property acquired from proceeds of crime before Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be attached u/s. 5(1) since possession continued after Prevention of Money Laundering Act came into force.
