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...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
