Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Rakesh Brijal Jain v. State of Maharashtra ( Bom)( HC) (UR)

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 .
S. 2 (1)(u): “Proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly by property derived or obtained directly or indirectly ,by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence or value of any such property – Offence of money laundering – Punishment for money -laundering – Allowing the Criminal Revision application the Court awarded exemplary cost Rs 1 lakh each on complainant and Enforcement Director ( ED) for invoking criminal action and harassing the Developer with criminal action – Breach of agreement – Purchaser and Developer –Law Enforcement Agencies like ED should conduct them selves within parameters of law and that they cannot take law in to their own hands without application of mind and harass citizens. [S. 3, 4, Indian Penal Code 1860 , S 120B, 406 , 418 , 420 ]

Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v.UOI (2024) 167 taxmann.com 450/91GSTL 114/106 GST 818 Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org

Goods and Service Tax Act , 2017
S.73 :Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts – Challenge against show cause notice under the CGST – Writ against show cause notice is dismissed – Alternative remedy –No violation of principle of natural justice – Frivolous petition only to avoid recourse to statutory remedy and take its chance with filing petition in High Court – Cost of Rs 5 lakh is awarded on the petitioner to be paid to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within four weeks. . [ Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Art . 226 ]

Vijay Channabasav Suttatti v. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 384 (Bom)( HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed , Vijay Channabasav Suttatti v. ACIT (2024) 301 Taxman 236 (SC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Review of order is not permitted – Writ petition is dismissed . [ Art. 226 ]

Dev Technofab Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 /471 ITR 423 ((Delhi)( HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , Dev Technofab Ltd. v. DCIT, [2024]301 Taxman 72/471 ITR 430 (SC)

S. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Satisfaction note pertained to non-searched entity and material which was alluded to pertained to assessment year 2019-20 only- Notice pertaining to AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 is quashed and set aside. [S. 132 , Art. 226 ]

AIM Fincon (P) Ltd v. ACIT( 2024) 166 taxmann.com 680 ( Guj)( HC) . Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed for failure to explain the delay of 489 days in filing of SLP , ACIT v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 169 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Accommodation entries – Sale of shares – All material with respect to transaction at time of original assessment – Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation- Change of opinion – Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed . [ S. 68, 132, 148 , Art. 226 ]

Vipul Kumar Patel v. UOI [2024] 167 taxmann.com 140 (Telangana) ( HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed, as infructuous as subsequent assessments have been made .PDIT (Inv) v. Vipul Kumar Patel (2024) 301 Taxman 408 (SC)

S. 132: Search and Seizure –Strictures – Warrant issued – Search premises left blank – Witnesses from different place – Panchnama – Search invalid – Documents to conduct search fabricated- An income tax inspection and/ or investigation would be permissible only in respect of a past event but not for possible future contingencies- Department is directed to refund cash of Rs.5.00 crores to assessee with interest at 12% p.a. along with costs of Rs.20,000. [ S.132A, 132B, Art. 14, 226 , 300A ]

Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v.ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 323( Bom)( HC) Editorial : SLP of assesse is dismissed , Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Civil contractor – Widening and strengthening of existing road – Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority – Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount – Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed .[ S.260A ]

Nammalvar Lingusamy v. ACIT (2024)110 ITR 31 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of consideration for sale of immovable property in cash-Registered document duly signed by vendor and purchaser showing receipt in cash-Wrong entry-Adjustment thorough a journal entry-Failure to modify in the document-Levy of penalty is affirmed.[S. 269SS, 274]

Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara v ITO (2024)110 ITR 14 (Trib) (SN)(Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Not maintaining the books of account-Not liable for penalty for failure to get accounts audited.[S.44AA, 44AB, 139(1),148, 271A]

Paras Mal Sethia v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 16 (SN) (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Obtained tax audit report before due date-Wrongly mention as no in the column-Penalty is deleted.[S.44AA, 44AB]