Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Approved resolution plans extinguish unsubmitted pre-approval tax claims, preventing later recovery outside the insolvency process and preserving a cl...
Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment and permits working capital adjustment, while APA margins cannot govern non-covered years...
Treaty benefit, goodwill depreciation and hedging costs: export commission disallowed, while key business deductions and depreciation claims succeeded...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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" ?
The Supreme Court of India examined the legality of the arrest of the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court found no significant difference between the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43B of the UAPA regarding the communication of grounds for arrest. Both provisions stem from the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized the fundamental right of an arrested person to be informed in writing of the grounds for arrest promptly. Failure to provide written grounds of arrest before remand vitiates the arrest and subsequent proceedings. The Court held that the arrest and remand orders were invalid, quashed them, and directed the release of the appellant. The judgment sets a binding precedent for all courts in the country.
The Supreme Court of India examined the legality of the arrest of the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court found no significant difference between the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43B of the UAPA regarding the communication of grounds for arrest. Both provisions stem from the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized the fundamental right of an arrested person to be informed in writing of the grounds for arrest promptly. Failure to provide written grounds of arrest before remand vitiates the arrest and subsequent proceedings. The Court held that the arrest and remand orders were invalid, quashed them, and directed the release of the appellant. The judgment sets a binding precedent for all courts in the country.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
