Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
