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...
The Tribunal upheld provisional attachment of flats, parking spaces and agricultural land as equivalent-value property under PMLA, finding that the assets were purchased during the period of criminal activity after receipt of funds treated as proceeds of crime. The appellants' claim that the properties were acquired before the scheduled offence was rejected because the record showed otherwise and no legitimate source of acquisition was proved. It also held that the date of registration of the criminal case was not decisive, and declined to apply Seema Garg in light of later Supreme Court and High Court interpretation that proceeds of crime can cover property of equivalent value. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld provisional attachment of flats, parking spaces and agricultural land as equivalent-value property under PMLA, finding that the assets were purchased during the period of criminal activity after receipt of funds treated as proceeds of crime. The appellants' claim that the properties were acquired before the scheduled offence was rejected because the record showed otherwise and no legitimate source of acquisition was proved. It also held that the date of registration of the criminal case was not decisive, and declined to apply Seema Garg in light of later Supreme Court and High Court interpretation that proceeds of crime can cover property of equivalent value. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.