Madras High Court held that petition is dismissed since the same was filed on the premise that bank (recovery officer) has sold entire property (included the one already sold). The said premise is incorrect. Hence, petition dismissed.
Additionally, any person summoned to the DGGI may request his statement to be recorded under CCTV surveillance, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that concurrent running of the sentences is permissible only if the offences have arisen out of the single transaction. Accordingly, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded u/s. 427 of Cr. PC in cases where there is different transactions and different judgements.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application stands dismissed since the material collected shows that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering matter. Accordingly, bail application rejected.
Madras High Court held that the Merchandise Exports Incentive Scheme (MEIS) scrip can be cancelled even if the scrips are availed off and the validity period of 24 months has expired. Accordingly, matter is remanded back to enable authority to apply its mind.
ITAT Chandigarh held that surplus funds of a charitable institution are being held in a fiduciary capacity hence can never be used for any other purpose except for charitable activity. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO for fresh adjudication.
The adjudication is conducted as per the mechanism outlined under SEBI Act and the rules framed thereunder. Notably, the provisions of the SEBI Act or its rules do not mandate the issuance of a separate demand notice before recovery.
In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that MFDs are freely importable items, whereas the Customs Department claims that they are restricted items which require certification from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and prior authorisation from DGFT, before importing them.
Gujarat High Court held that departmental officers who issued summons or arrest memo are not required to be cross-examined by the petitioner. Accordingly, non-granting cross-examination to that extent is justifiable.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act without mentioning the specific instance of misreporting in the notice or in order will vitiate the penalty order. Accordingly, penalty deleted and appeal allowed.
