Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2015 2015 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 1428 Records

• 2015 (7) TMI 1274 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Application for registration u/s 12AA rejected - Held that:- As in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee inter alia by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rehoboth Mission V/s. Director of Income-tax(Exemption) (2010 (5) TMI 669 - ITAT HYDERABAD ), wherein it was held that there is nothing in the language of the relevant provisions of the Act to suggest that an institution with mixed objects is precluded from getting registration under S.12AA of the Act. It was held that a trust which is only for religious purposes is excluded and debarred from getting registration under S.12AA of the Act, and trust whose are charitable as well as religious cannot be denied registration under S.12AA. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1273 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Claim for deduction under Section 10A - suo moto adjustment made by the appellant under Section 92(1) - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of iGate Global Solutions Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT BANGALORE) we hold that the assessee in the case on hand be allowed deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act, in the return of income filed, in respect of Suo Moto T.P. Adjustment amounting to ₹ 28,61,352 while determining the Arm’s Length Price of its international transactions. - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1272 - ITAT PANAJI
  

  Addition towards the provision of bad debts on standard assets - addition u/s.36(1)(viia) on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details of deduction during the assessment year - Held that:- Before us, the assessee submitted that the deduction was allowable to the assessee as the same was claimed in pursuance to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. However, he did not furnish the details and evidence or any documents in support of the same. In absence of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

  Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - disallowing the interest for not deducting TDS u/s. 194A(3)(v) - Held that:- In the light of the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2015 and the clarification by the Board that the Circular has not been withdrawn, makes it ample clear that the impugned provisions relating to the liability of TDS would come with effect from 01/06/2015, we, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions made in the order u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A)- Decided in favour of assessee

  Addition on account of accrued interest on loans which are classified as ‘Non-performing Assets’ - Held that:- In view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of JCIT Vs.M/s Canfin Homes Ltd (2011 (8) TMI 178 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), it is observed that the facts of the appellant bank are similar to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein it has been held that the contention of the revenue that in respect of non-performing assets even though it does not yield any income as the assessee has adopted a mercantile system of accounting, he has to pay tax on the revenue which has accrued notionally is without any basis.- Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1271 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Valuation - whether the clearances of cement made by the appellant in 50kg. bags to various builders and developers for the construction purpose are required to be held as entitled to exemption in terms of N/N. 4/2006-CE (Sl.No.1C)?

  Held that: - the issue is no more res integra and stands settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal decision in the case of Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-II [2009 (5) TMI 445 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that the said clearances have been held to be covered by the expression industrial clearances and as such entitled to the benefit of the notification.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1270 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of proposition notice dated 14.8.2013 - Entertainment tax - notice was challenged on the ground that various material, on which the Department relied upon, were not provided along with the notice - Held that: - A plain reading of the assessment order goes to show that in the order it is acknowledged that the assessee had filed its objections 'which are gone through and found untenable'. Merely stating that the reply is untenable would not be sufficient. What was the reply to the show-cause notice and why the same was found to be untenable, has not been stated in the order.

  The order of assessment dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Entertainment Tax Officer, IV Circle, Bangalore deserves to be quashed solely on the ground that it has not at all considered the objections filed by the appellant/assessee to the proposition notice dated 14.8.2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1269 - ATPMLA
  

  Offence under PMLA - confirmation of attachment of the properties - Held that:- The applicant has not produced any relevant documents to show that he had such dealings which would have generated money for him in his companies and businesses. The appellants has failed to discharge the burden which was on him under the Act. The applicant has alleged that he withdrew the money from the bank to purchase the land with another accused, however, it has not been shown even prima-facie as to from where the money had come in the businesses of the appellant. Except making bald allegations that the applicant had been doing businesses, the details of various transactions done by him was given by the appellant. In the circumstances, none of the allegations made by the appellant can be accepted.

  Order of confirmation of attachment of the properties of the appellant are repelled and cannot be accepted. No illegality, irregularity has been made out in the impugned order which will entail interference by this Appellate Tribunal in exercising its appellate jurisdiction. No other pleas have been raised on behalf of the appellant except those which have been dealt with herein-above by this Tribunal.

  Therefore the appeal of the appellant must fail. The appellant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the appeal. The provisional attachment order and impugned order confirming the attachment order cannot be set aside in the facts and circumstances.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1268 - ATPMLA
  

  Offence under PMLA - Furnishing of information to the Director - Held that:- During the course of hearing before this Tribunal, it was noticed that out of 2697 cash transactions, there are various transactions which are for ₹ 10,00,000/- and as per Rule 3, the appellant is not required to file report in respect of such transactions and the respondent has imposed fine on these transactions also. The appellant vide reply letter dated 2-8-2012 submitted that 256 transactions out of 2697 transaction could not be included as they were less than ₹ 10 lakhs. When this discrepancy was pointed out to the respondent, the respondent after verifications of facts from records submitted that out of 2697 transactions, 250 cash transactions are not reportable as each of them were of ₹ 10,00,000/- or less and therefore the amount of total fine can be reduced to this extent. It was submitted that correct number of failure after correction would be 2447 cash transactions and fine which could be imposed would work out to ₹ 2,44,70,000/-.

  The appeal is therefore, without any merits and requires no further interference by this Tribunal except that the amount of fine is reduced to ₹ 2,44,70,000/-. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The application seeking stay of recovery of fine from the appellant is also dismissed and the stay order granted by this Tribunal is vacated. The appellant shall be entitled to pay the amount of fine of ₹ 2,44,70,000/- within four weeks, failing which the respondent shall be entitled to recover the amount from the appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Powers to requisition books of account, etc u/s 132A - Valueable Articles and Currency Notes - whether once the requisition under section 132A of the Act is issued, the same requires to be denied on account of the objection raised by the prosecuting authority? - whether the cash of ₹ 8.10 crore would be necessary to be produced as muddamal of bribe or otherwise at the time of trial? - Held that:- It is nowhere coming on record that any trap was organised that the Court may require the detailed number of series of currency notes, which also in any case at the time of panchnama, the police ought to have done. Even if it is not done, it would not be difficult to so do it and the amount cannot continue to lie with the Investigating Officer. The Court in the alternative also could have thought of placing it in the Fixed Deposit or the bank locker with any Nationalised Bank for the purpose of safety and security of the currency notes. There is no purpose worth the name that would be served if the amount continues to lie with the Investigating Officer. This being a law on the interim custody during the pendency of the trial, the vital question that is addressed by this Court is the one raised by the applicant-Department being the claimant under the provision of law which has reason to believe that the amount is unaccounted money and is liable for investigation under the Incometax Act and Rules framed thereunder, the warrant of authorisation is issued and the same is found to be sustainable by this Court.

  The learned trial Judge when observed that the seized amount pertained to bribe money and it was required to be preserved, it neither had regarded the provision of section 451 of the CrPC nor the law laid down on the subject, as discussed hereinabove, nor did it consider the relevant provisions of Incometax Act and the pronounced authorities on the subject while denying such requisition to the applicant-Department. The Investigating Agency was also not right in contending that the custody of this muddamal article is necessary till completion of the trial when even otherwise, the production of the same through panchnama or exhibiting the same by virtue of video recording of same could have been managed.

  For the foregoing reasons, the present Revision Application succeeds and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The applicant-Department shall be free to undertake all actions permitted under the law, however, he shall make the Fixed Deposit of the entire amount of ₹ 8.10 crore with the State Bank of India within a period of four weeks from the date of taking over such muddamal currency notes, initially for a period of two years and thereafter, the same shall be renewed from time to time till finalisation of such proceedings initiated by the applicant-Department.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1266 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim - CENVAT credit - Welding Electrodes - Held that: - It is a settled position of law that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the taxing statute. The appellant has complied with the requirements of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by filing the refund application - the appellant’s applications for refund cannot be denied and thus, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1265 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Scope of consideration under the purview of section 254(2) - suppressed sales on account of settlement petition - Held that:- As before us while arguing the Miscellaneous Application, the Ld. Special AR has vehemently stressed that the Tribunal has erred in not extrapolating the sales for the entire year based on the evidence i.e. the petition before the Settlement Commission and hence, there is an error in assumption of facts and mistake of law in this regard. We find no merit in the said arguments raised by the Ld. Special AR before us during the course of hearing of Miscellaneous Application and the same is beyond the scope of consideration under the purview of section 254(2) of the Act.

  As referred to by us in the paras hereinabove, such a plea could have been raised by the Department during the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal for the first time. However, in the absence of such plea being raised during the course of hearing of the main appeal, raising of such an argument before the Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Application is sheer waste of judicial time and process of law. This is a fit case for levy of costs against the Department for raising frivolous and vexatious arguments and pleas about estimation of income, which were never raised during the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal

  Admittedly, during the course of search and seizure operation on certain brokers, evidences of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, was found against the assessee. However, no search and seizure operation was carried out against the assessee, but the assessee claims that in order to buy peace of mind, it had declared the said amount by way of petition before the Settlement Commission. The said offer made by the assessee was accepted in toto. It may be noted that the Excise authorities have the power to re-visit the offer made by the assessee, in case, any adverse material is available against the person making the offer. It may also be noted that the Settlement accepted in the hands of the assessee is for the financial year and is not restricted to the number of days for which it has offered. In other words, once a person makes a settlement petition for a particular year on account of the evidence found for part of the period and once the petition is accepted in the hands of the assessee, no further addition can be made on account of alleged clandestine removal of goods or suppressed sales, in the absence of evidence for the balance period.

  Even on merits, the Revenue has no case against the assessee. The reliance placed upon by the Ld. Special AR on the ratio laid down in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2006-07 is misplaced as the addition in the hands of the assessee in that year was made on account of search and seizure operations carried out by the Income-tax Department, wherein sales outside books were found for few days. However, no independent investigation / inquiry by the Income-tax Department has been made before completing assessment proceedings against the assessee.

  The assessee had offered the additional income on account of such clandestine removal of goods before the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2007-08 and the same was the reason for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act. Once a particular fact was available with AO, which was taken note of and considered by him during the assessment proceedings, but the addition having been made on only on the issue of erratic consumption of electricity, which is the basis of order passed by CCE, Aurangabad, who was also in knowledge of the clandestine removal of material and the investigation carried out by the DGCEI and the petition before the Settlement Commission, even the Third Member of CESTAT was aware of all these proceedings, but since the settlement petition filed by the assessee had been accepted in toto by the Settlement Commission, no further addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on this ground, in the absence of any inquiry or investigation by the Assessing Officer.

  As pointed out by us in the paras hereinabove, the Ld. Special AR has failed to establish its case of the Tribunal in not considering any material and in the absence of the same, no power can be exercised under section 254(2) of the Act. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we hold that the Miscellaneous Application moved by the Revenue is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. - Decided against revenue

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1264 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Quantification of suppressed production - G.P. rate - Held that:- Following the same parity of reasoning as per our order of even date in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Others relating to assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and in view of the physical verification carried out by the authorities as referred to by us in the paras hereinabove and the consequent order of Division Bench of CESTAT in the case of present assessee’s before us relating to assessment year 2009-10, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below and we reverse the order of CIT(A). We find no merit in the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of suppressed production consequent to erratic consumption of electricity.

  Appeals of the Revenue against the adoption of GP rate of 4% and the deletion of working capital required for investment in suppressed production is also deleted by us by following order in the case of assessee and others in earlier years and following the same parity of reasoning, we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Release of detained goods - sale of goods or processing of goods? - the grievance of the petitioner is when the consignor is their branch at Kanyakumari District in Tamil Nadu, the consignee is their own branch at Visakhapatnam, Olam Agro India Private Limited is one and the same under the Act and there is no question of sale involved - Held that: - This Court agreeing with the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to make the tax amount of ₹ 1,59,224 and produce the same for release of the goods as he is also entitled to challenge the impugned order by filing revision before the appropriate authority, finds no impediment to release the goods - the petitioner is directed to pay the one time tax of ₹ 1,59,224/- and on payment of the said amount before the respondent, the goods are directed to be released - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1262 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Addition u/s 17(2)(iii)/28(iv) - perquisite in the hands of director - difference between the stamp duty valuation and sale consideration constituted as income in the hands of the assessee - assessee being a director of company purchased a property from the above said company - Held that:- Since the assessee happened to be the Share holder and Director of the company, which sold the property, the assessing officer has presumed that the assessee has derived benefit from the transaction of purchase of property for the reason that there was a difference between the sale consideration and the value determined for stamp duty purposes. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to assess the difference amount of ₹ 96.26 lakhs as income of the assessee. AO was not sure as to the section under which the said difference is assessable. Hence he has quoted both sec. 17(2)(iii) and sec. 28(iv) of the Act. We have noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has given proper reasoning that the above said difference cannot be assessed as income of the assessee under both the sections. During the course of hearing, the Ld D.R also could not controvert the reasoning given by Ld CIT(A).

  The provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii), which provide for assessing difference between the Stamp duty valuation and the sale consideration in the hands of the buyer, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f from 1.10.2009. In the instant case, the impugned transaction has taken place on 17-7-2008 and hence the deeming provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii) are also not applicable to it. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessing officer has made the impugned addition only on surmises - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1261 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Provision for warranty disallowed - there is no consistency in the formula on the basis of which provision is made and there is no reasonable basis behind making estimate for provision for warranty - Held that:- The provision of warranty expenses has been made by the assessee on the basis of past experience and on a scientific basis. Even the actual expenditure incurred on subsequent years is more than that for which the provision was made. We, therefore, do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities in disallowing the claim of the assessee on this issue. The orders of the lower authorities are hereby set aside and the claim of the assessee on this issues is allowed.

  Claim for deduction of prior period expenses - CIT-A rejecting the claim for deduction on the ground that the relief can be claimed only by filing the revised return - Held that:- The taxing authorities should charge the legitimate taxes from the tax payers. They are not supposed to punish them for their bonafide mistakes of not claiming a deduction to which they are otherwise eligible under the provisions of relevant laws. The ld. CIT(A) in appeal was supposed to look into the claim of the assessee and if found genuine then to allow the same as while adjudicating the appeal, he also acts as a quasi-judicial authority . He therefore has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction in the right manner - the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the matter is again restored to him with a direction to look into and consider the claim of the assessee and if the assessee is found eligible for the said claim, then to allow the same accordingly.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1260 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Amendment in a criminal complaint - the amendment was made prior to taking cognizance of the offence - Held that: - it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints - In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors., [1987 (8) TMI 449 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that is, instead of Modi Industries Ltd. the name of the company was mentioned as Modi Distillery and the name was sought to be amended.

  In the instant case, the amendment application was filed on 24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding paras 11(a) and 11 (b). Though, the proposed amendment was not a formal amendment, but a substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint before the disposal of amendment application.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Taxable surplus - modification of account after Actuarial valuation - whether negative reserve has an impact of reducing th 'taxable surplus' as per Form-I and therefore corresponding adjustment for “negative reserve” need to be made to arrive at “taxable surplus”? - Held that:- Apex Court in LIC Vs. CIT [1963 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] has held that the Assessing Officer has no power to modify the account after Actuarial valuation is done. It is also pertinent to note that for the Assessment Year 200708, the Assessing Officer had raised an identical issue during the assessment proceedings and thereafter by the assessment order dated 30 December 2009 held that no adjustment of the Actuarial valuation is to be done by following the decision of the Apex Court in LIC (supra). Therefore we find no substantial question of law arising for our consideration.

  Income on shareholders' account taxed as income from other sources - whether income earned on shareholders' account is not an income which represents income on account of Life Insurance Business? - Held that:- In terms of Section 44 of the Act, such income has to be taxed in accordance with First Schedule as provided therein. None of the authorities under the Act nor even before us is it urged that the assessee is carrying on separate business other than life insurance business. Accordingly, the impugned order holding that the income from shareholders' account is also to be taxed as a part of life insurance business cannot be found fault with in view of the clear mandate of Section 44 of the Act. Accordingly Question No.8 also does not raise any substantial question of law

  Appeals admitted on Question Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Winding up petition - Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets and properties of the Respondent company - petition against the Respondent company, its promoters / directors and others seeking inter alia recovery of sums owed by these parties to the Petitioner - Petitioner seeks leave to implead the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay as a party in place of the Respondent Company - Held that:- Leave is granted. The Petitioner to carry out the amendment in the plaint within a period of two weeks from today.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1257 - ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
  

  Validity of assessment - notice u/s 148 of the act - notice on deceased person - Held that: - the assessee had already expired on 06.12.2002 and the legal heir Smt. Raj Rani Malhotra wife of the deceased assessee informed the AO on 03.05.2010 that the assessee had expired on 06.12.2002 and the return in the name of deceased assessee was filed by the legal heir on 29.08.2003. Thereafter also the AO did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act or 143(2) of the Act in the name of the legal heir, therefore, the assessment framed by the AO on the basis of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee was invalid.

  The notice issued u/s 148 was invalid and the assessment framed on the basis of the said invalid notice was void ab initio - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1256 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
  

  Offence under PMLA - attachment orders - joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants - Held that:- During the course of arguments in the present appeal, learned counsel for appellants submitted that though the respondent has alleged that the subject properties have been acquired by the accused out of proceeds of crime in the names of appellants but this allegation of the respondent is being contested on the ground that subject properties are independently acquired properties of the appellants from their legitimate sources. This goes on to show that each of the appellants will have separate arguments regarding source of acquisition of the subject properties.

  Here all the 20 appellants are independent persons. They cannot file a joint appeal. In a combined appeal, a declaration, plea/contention by one appellant will not be binding on other appellant(s). Each of the appellant is aggrieved only of his/her property attached and not for property attached of other appellant(s). In other words as each appellant is independently aggrieved, therefore the aggrieved appellants has to file separate appeals with appropriate copies.

  A perusal of appeal reveals that though appeal has been filed jointly by 20 appellants but only one appeal fee has been filed and it is not the plea of the appellants that though joint appeal has been filed by twenty appellants but twenty appeal fees has been paid for twenty appellants and for the purpose of pursuing appeal on behalf of twenty appellants, joint appeal may be allowed to be pursued. It is also not the plea of the appellants that all the subject properties whose attachment is contested are jointly owned by all the twenty appellants and they should be treated jointly as one appellant. Thus joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants would not be maintainable. Consequently, the plea of the appellants is liable to be rejected.

  ---

• 2015 (7) TMI 1255 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
  

  Provisional attachment - Manner of taking possession of immovable property - plea of the applicant is that the four immovable properties valued at ₹ 5.6 crores and one fixed deposit of ₹ 3 crores which have been attached are not proceed of crime but they have been attached for the value thereof so that assets equal to proceeds of crime i.e. ₹ 8.6 crores are available for proceedings relating to confiscation under PMLA and if the four immovable properties are allowed to be replaced by fixed deposits of equivalent value, the purpose of the attachment will be served in full

  Held that:- At this stage we are not deciding whether the attachment of properties is right or wrong as the same will be decided at the time of disposal of the appeal. Assuming that the attachment order is sustainable, we agree with the plea of the respondent that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no provision under PML Act and Rules made thereunder which will entitle the applicant for replacement of immovable property under attachment with fixed deposit. The applicant has also not made out a case for exceptional circumstances and to justify the same for release of immovable properties in lieu of fixed deposits. Though the counsel for applicant also offered extra amount of fixed deposit equal to interest for the period from the date of attachment but such a plea cannot be accepted in the absence of any provision under the law and considering the fact that after attachment of immovable property, there may be appreciation in the market value of those properties which is not ascertained. Further, the applicant has not challenged that on the date of attachment, other properties such as deposits in bank were available which could or should have been attached by the respondent instead of four immovable properties as attached which would have served the purpose of attachment. Rather the plea of the respondent that he has attached assets of the applicant on 4-10-2012 on the basis of the statement of the director of applicant company u/s 50 of PMLA and other material/detail of assets as available after investigation till then was not even disputed by the applicant. Application dismissed.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 72