Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.