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...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 
