Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
