Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is examined in relation to prosecution complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The note states that BNSS provisions on complaints and cognizance apply where the PMLA contains no inconsistent provision. It describes the proviso to section 223(1) as barring cognizance without first hearing the proposed accused, and characterises non-hearing as an illegality rather than a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice. It records that the cognizance order was set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.
Pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is examined in relation to prosecution complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The note states that BNSS provisions on complaints and cognizance apply where the PMLA contains no inconsistent provision. It describes the proviso to section 223(1) as barring cognizance without first hearing the proposed accused, and characterises non-hearing as an illegality rather than a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice. It records that the cognizance order was set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.