Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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.