Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitation.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the Adjudicating Authority to record reasons to believe, based on available material, that the property is required for adjudication and represents proceeds of crime. The text states that examination of unexplained investments and unsecured loans supported retention of records, jewellery, cash and electronic devices. It further explains that a Supreme Court stay of an order quashing an ECIR renders the quashing order ineffective while the stay operates, reviving the prior position for continuation of proceedings. For limitation, the period during which investigation was stayed by a court is excluded; on that basis, the prosecution complaint was within time.
Retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the Adjudicating Authority to record reasons to believe, based on available material, that the property is required for adjudication and represents proceeds of crime. The text states that examination of unexplained investments and unsecured loans supported retention of records, jewellery, cash and electronic devices. It further explains that a Supreme Court stay of an order quashing an ECIR renders the quashing order ineffective while the stay operates, reviving the prior position for continuation of proceedings. For limitation, the period during which investigation was stayed by a court is excluded; on that basis, the prosecution complaint was within time.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.