Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT held that enhanced compensation fraudulently received after the claimants' own enhancement proceedings had failed constituted proceeds of crime, and that later possession and projection of that money as untainted property fell within money-laundering under Section 3. It further held that where the tainted property is unavailable, equivalent value property may be attached under Section 2(1)(u), even if the attached asset is ancestral or was acquired earlier, so long as it represents equivalent value. The Tribunal also interpreted Section 5(1) to require only an apprehended likelihood of concealment or transfer, not proof of actual alienation, and upheld the provisional attachment orders.
The AT held that enhanced compensation fraudulently received after the claimants' own enhancement proceedings had failed constituted proceeds of crime, and that later possession and projection of that money as untainted property fell within money-laundering under Section 3. It further held that where the tainted property is unavailable, equivalent value property may be attached under Section 2(1)(u), even if the attached asset is ancestral or was acquired earlier, so long as it represents equivalent value. The Tribunal also interpreted Section 5(1) to require only an apprehended likelihood of concealment or transfer, not proof of actual alienation, and upheld the provisional attachment orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.