The Court held that a direction under Section 142(2A) entails civil consequences and requires a pre-decisional hearing. It reaffirmed the application of natural justice principles.
Madras High Court held that money laundering offense is independent from predicate offense. Thus, conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent Prevention of Money Laundering Act prosecution doesn’t constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Court stayed GST proceedings while examining if Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority. The outcome will determine applicable GST rate on works contracts.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years not sustainable since there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, reassessment is invalid for non-furnishing of actual reasons recorded.
The Court held that a delay of more than eight years in passing an order pursuant to a Tribunal remand cannot be considered reasonable. It ruled that such proceedings are barred by limitation and upheld the refund with interest.
The Tribunal held that entire TDS credit can be allowed to one co-owner if the other has not claimed it. It remanded the matter for verification to prevent double credit.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal examined denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to delayed filing of audit reports. It held that the delay overlapped with COVID-19 disruptions and required reconsideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on condonation outcome.
Madras High Court held that refund claim filed is rightly rejected since differential customs duty was paid voluntarily and not under protest during DRI [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] investigation and closure of proceeding was requested by importer. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
