Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Retention of seized cash and vehicles during pending PMLA proceedings was upheld where a prosecution complaint was already pending in the same ECIR, and Section 8(3)(a) was held not to require a fresh complaint for each later seizure. The Tribunal also held that retention is not limited to property of named accused persons, so the challenge based on one appellant not being named failed. It accepted continued retention to trace a larger suspected quantum of proceeds of crime, rejected the objection that a separate Section 20 order was necessary, and found prima facie reasons to believe on the material and an insufficient explanation of the asset source. The appeals were dismissed.
Retention of seized cash and vehicles during pending PMLA proceedings was upheld where a prosecution complaint was already pending in the same ECIR, and Section 8(3)(a) was held not to require a fresh complaint for each later seizure. The Tribunal also held that retention is not limited to property of named accused persons, so the challenge based on one appellant not being named failed. It accepted continued retention to trace a larger suspected quantum of proceeds of crime, rejected the objection that a separate Section 20 order was necessary, and found prima facie reasons to believe on the material and an insufficient explanation of the asset source. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.