Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
