The case examined whether Indian assets could remain seized after foreign asset value was repatriated. The Tribunal ruled that once the objective of Section 37A is fulfilled, continued attachment loses its basis.
The appellant claimed the disputed funds were received unknowingly and had attempted to return them. The Tribunal granted relief by ordering release of the attached account after deposit of the entire disputed sum.
The Tribunal held that bank accounts cannot remain frozen merely because the account holder is related to a suspect or under investigation. The ED must first establish a prima facie connection between the property and proceeds of crime.
The Tribunal held that retention of seized assets can continue under Section 8(3) when a PMLA prosecution complaint is already pending. The key takeaway is that ED need not file a fresh or supplementary complaint for every newly seized asset.
The ITAT held that registration under Sections 12AA/12AB cannot be cancelled when the trust continues to genuinely carry out its educational objects. Alleged fund diversion and related-party transactions must be examined during assessment and taxation proceedings instead.
The ITAT set aside the lower authorities’ orders after considering CBDT Notification No. 31/2023, which increased the leave encashment exemption limit to ₹25 lakh.
The ITAT allowed relief after considering CBDT Notification No. 31/2023, which increased the leave encashment exemption limit to ₹25 lakh. The assessment and appellate orders were set aside.
The ITAT held that leave encashment of ₹7.65 lakh was fully exempt as it fell within the revised ₹25 lakh ceiling under Notification No. 31/2023. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the leave encashment exemption claim. The assessee was directed to substantiate the claim with supporting material.
The ITAT held that leave encashment of ₹6.97 lakh was fully exempt as it fell within the revised ₹25 lakh ceiling under Notification No. 31/2023. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
