Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
