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.
CESTAT Chennai held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not placed in a package within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence, provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable.
A petition concerning money laundering, illegal mining and granite quarrying was dismissed as the Court found sufficient averments disclosing cognizable offence against assessee
Bombay High Court held that import of cosmetic goods without Central Drugs Standard Control Organization license are considered prohibited goods hence the same are liable to be confiscated even if the same were meant for re-export.
Telangana High Court held that in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC since transactions are spread across several years issuance of consolidated notice permissible. Writ petition is dismissed due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 107(1) of the Act.
The issue concerned denial of CENVAT credit on services used across multiple units under centralized registration. The Tribunal held that Rule 7 permits distribution of credit subject only to limited conditions and does not restrict usage across units.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond four years was valid without failure to disclose material facts. The courts held that all relevant details were already disclosed during original assessment, making reopening without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
