Govt. designates three Special Courts in Maharashtra for trial of offences punishable under the Income-tax Act, 1961
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
(INVESTIGATION DIVISION-V)
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2020
S.O.2682(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 280A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and section 84 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (22 of 2015), the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, hereby designates the following courts of Magistrates of First Class as Special Courts under sub-section (1) of section 280A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and section 84 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 in the State of Maharashtra, for trial of offences punishable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and other related matters, namely:-
(i) the 38th Court, Ballard Pier for Mumbai region and 31st Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vikhroli for Mumbai including cases at Thane;
(ii) the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for entire Vidarbha region, and
(iii) the Court of 10th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.8), Pune for Pune region.
[F. No 285/30/2019-IT (Inv.V) CBDT]
DEEPAK TIWARI,
Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (INV.)
There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …
Engagement of Company Secretaries (CS) as Young Professionals in the Office of Regional Director (WR), Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and…
Applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE read with Section 69, 69A and 69C in a case arising before Settlement Commission…
Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…
Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…
Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…