Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
