Loading High Court cases…
109 orders · Page 3 of 3
The tribunal held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. Despite the prolonged detention, the nature of the economic offense and ongoing further investigation, including tracing of assets abroad, necessitated continued custody.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 5 lakhs to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority. The ITAT was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The High Court held that the exception for penny stock cases, allowing appeals below the monetary limit, was applicable only to appeals filed on or after September 16, 2019. Since this appeal was filed earlier, it did not qualify for the exception.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, no additions can be made to completed assessments. This principle was confirmed by a Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, no additions can be made to completed assessments. This principle was confirmed by a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal found that the mere mention of Section 54/54F in the assessment order did not negate the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 54. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal by condoning the delay in filing Form 10B. The Tribunal relied on a subsequent circular (Circular No. 16 of 2022) which allowed condonation of delay up to 3 years, and a Gujarat High Court decision treating the filing of the auditor's report as directory.
The High Court found that the ITAT had correctly appreciated the facts and concluded that the AO had scrupulously followed the directions issued by the PCIT. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Tribunal rightly held that the Principal Commissioner was not justified in invoking Section 263 for the second time on the same issue without providing reasons. The Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and verified transactions, making the assessment order permissible.