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...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Territorial jurisdiction for a money-laundering offence may lie with any Special Court covering a local area where proceeds of crime are derived, obtained, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected as untainted property. The notes state that acquisition of alleged proceeds and attachment of related land at Gurugram made institution there competent, while concealment of proceeds attached at Delhi also created concurrent jurisdiction. Where the connected scheduled offence had been transferred to Delhi, transferring the PMLA proceeding there was considered expedient so that both matters could be tried by a Special Court having jurisdiction over the laundering offence. The proceeding was to continue at its existing stage.
Territorial jurisdiction for a money-laundering offence may lie with any Special Court covering a local area where proceeds of crime are derived, obtained, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected as untainted property. The notes state that acquisition of alleged proceeds and attachment of related land at Gurugram made institution there competent, while concealment of proceeds attached at Delhi also created concurrent jurisdiction. Where the connected scheduled offence had been transferred to Delhi, transferring the PMLA proceeding there was considered expedient so that both matters could be tried by a Special Court having jurisdiction over the laundering offence. The proceeding was to continue at its existing stage.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.