CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-160-HC-MUM-IT

Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT : BOMBAY HIGH COURT(Dated: January 18, 2016)

Whether the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening the assessment are the only reasons which could be considered for the formation of the belief for the purpose of issuing a notice u/s 148 - YES: HC

Whether when the assessment order was passed by the AO after due application of mind, after considering that dividend income earned from the mutual funds are exempt from tax u/s 10(33), subsequent initiation of reassessment proceedings would be considered merely on the basis of a change of opinion - YES: HC

Whether when it is apparent that the assessee has earned dividend income by way of holding share capital, which is exempt from tax, AO could have reasons to believe that the dividend income earned by such assessee from the mutual funds held had escaped assessment - NO: HC

Assessee's appeal allowed

2016-TIOL-159-HC-MUM-ST

CINEYUG WORLDWIDE Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: January 22, 2016)

ST - Petition filed against order of Settlement Commission - Petitioner claims that Revenue’s Report was never supplied to them nor were they given an opportunity of dealing with it - That Settlement Commission has incorrectly and wrongly proceeded on basis of discrepancies recorded in Revenue’s Report - Settlement Commission has plenary powers to summon and take evidence - If there was any doubt about this, it is completely set at rest by the plain wording of Section 32-L(2) which speaks specifically of the Central Excise Officer being entitled to use all the materials and information produced by a petitioner before Settlement Commission - Settlement Commission seems to have straightaway accepted that Report not only as gospel, but as totally incontrovertible, and incapable of being subjected to any rational settlement - There is absolutely no basis for this, other than Settlement Commission saying, to all intents and purposes, that matter is apparently too onerous and too taxing on Settlement Commission’s time, energy and resources which is wholly unacceptable.

Petition disposed of

2016-TIOL-158-HC-DEL-PMLA

MAHANIVESH OILS AND FOODS PVT LTD Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: January 25, 2016 )

Whether a commission of a scheduled offence is the fundamental pre-condition for any proceeding under the Act as without a scheduled offence being committed, the question of proceeds of crime coming into existence does not arise - YES: HC

Whether the order of provisional attachment can be issued only in respect of property that is in possession of a person accused of a scheduled offence - NO: HC

Whether when it is well settled that section 5 stand independent of Section 3 and unless it is believed that an offence of moneylaundering has been committed the question of attaching any property provisionally u/s 5 can arise - NO: HC

Whether the attachment u/s 5 can be sustained where the principal offence as well as the offence of using its proceeds is alleged to have been committed prior to the Act coming into force - NO: HC

Whether if the funds were already projected as untainted funds unconnected with the crime, the persons involved in such activity can be considered as accused even if at that time money-laundering was not an offence - NO: HC

Whether a mere mechanical recording that the property is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with, could meet the requirements of Section 5(1) of the Act as there is no live link between the material before the Revenue Officer and the formation of his belief - NO: HC

Assessee's appeal allowed

2016-TIOL-157-HC-MUM-CUS

JSW STEEL LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: January 25, 2016)

Cus - Government introduced an Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme ("IEIS") by Notfn 27(RE- 12)/2009-2014 ("the 2012 Notification") - By Notfn 44(RE-2013)/2009-2014 ("the 2013 Notification"), according to Petitioners, two paragraphs were added to 2012 Notfn - Petitioners are all exporters of various types of products - It is the case of Petitioners that 2012 Notfn did not in and of itself prescribe any cap or ceiling limit on quantum of duty credit scrip and only prescribed a percentage of incremental growth and contained various other qualifying restrictions - All applications for export duty credit scrip exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs were rejected by Respondents.

Petitions disposed of