Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
