There exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Madras High Court held that recovery of availed duty drawback beyond period of three years from the date of respective shipment is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is directed to reconsider the matter after affording personal hearing as order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC must, accordingly, be given primacy during the CIRP. Once CoC decides that retention of the possession of the subject property was not in the interest of the CIRP, that decision must be given the respect that is lawfully due to it.
Madras High Court has instructed NCLT to file detailed counter as NCLT has proceeded to appoint the Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] different from that suggested by Corporate Debtor [CD].
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of an agriculturist, holding that once the assessee provides primary evidence for cash deposits, the burden shifts to the Revenue to provide contradictory evidence.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs. 26.49 lakh addition, ruling that foreign remittances into an NRE account were a valid source for a property purchase.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Mumbai has opted not to issue a ruling on the classification of processed supari, citing a pending case.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a ₹16.69 lakh addition, ruling that Section 69A cannot be invoked mechanically when the assessee provides evidence of business receipts.
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a ruling against a Subway franchisee, M/s Urban Essence, for failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction from 18% to 5% to its consumers. The tribunal confirmed the anti-profiteering amount of ₹5,47,005 after multiple investigations found the company increased its base prices to offset the tax cut.
Held that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b) of the Customs Act, no drawback shall be allowed.
