Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case involving scheduled offences. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA in anticipatory bail and the legality of the ECIR. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that bail in economic offences must be granted sparingly due to their impact on society. It noted that the prosecution need not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt for bail, but must establish a genuine case based on reasonable material. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA and dismissed the petition. Additionally, the court validated the legality of the ECIR based on the registration of FIRs and highlighted that a person can be tried under the PMLA even if not directly accused in the predicate offence.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case involving scheduled offences. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA in anticipatory bail and the legality of the ECIR. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that bail in economic offences must be granted sparingly due to their impact on society. It noted that the prosecution need not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt for bail, but must establish a genuine case based on reasonable material. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA and dismissed the petition. Additionally, the court validated the legality of the ECIR based on the registration of FIRs and highlighted that a person can be tried under the PMLA even if not directly accused in the predicate offence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4872 
