PMLA Tribunal held ₹50 lakh seized in a CBI trap is proceeds of crime and can be attached under PMLA even if the cash is already in court custody pending the criminal trial.
The tribunal ruled that the amount of penalty under Section 13(1) of FEMA is discretionary and depends on facts and circumstances of each case. As the adjudicating authority had already imposed significant penalties after evaluating the evidence, no grounds existed for enhancement.
PMLA Tribunal upheld attachment of wife’s property linked to fraud proceeds, ruling assets can be attached even if the owner is not accused in the scheduled offence.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extensions apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not to statutory deadlines like filing TDS statements. Consequently, the levy of late filing fee under section 234E was upheld for delayed TDS returns.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Court expressed concern over unclear railway fund allocation and emphasized that spending must prioritize public safety and welfare. Railways were directed to submit a detailed affidavit explaining funding priorities.
Rajasthan High Court held that failure to file GST returns in one state makes the taxpayer a defaulter and can justify denial of GST registration in another state.
The tribunal held that steel items used for maintenance and repair of manufacturing machinery fall within the scope of inputs used in relation to manufacture. The demand for reversal of Cenvat credit and penalty was set aside.
The Madras High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the institution stage without numbering the suit. It ruled that courts perform a ministerial function while numbering suits and set aside the trial court’s rejection order.
