Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The High Court considered a case involving money laundering and a provisional attachment order issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice. The court noted that the law allows provisional attachment by authorized officers for up to 180 days. The petitioners, considered claimants under the law, were directed to seek remedy before the Special Court u/s Prevention of Money-Laundering Act in Jaipur. The court found the statutory remedy available to the petitioners more appropriate than the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. As the petitioners did not challenge the attachment on merits and lacked standing to contest it as proceeds of crime, their plea to restrict the attachment was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court considered a case involving money laundering and a provisional attachment order issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice. The court noted that the law allows provisional attachment by authorized officers for up to 180 days. The petitioners, considered claimants under the law, were directed to seek remedy before the Special Court u/s Prevention of Money-Laundering Act in Jaipur. The court found the statutory remedy available to the petitioners more appropriate than the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. As the petitioners did not challenge the attachment on merits and lacked standing to contest it as proceeds of crime, their plea to restrict the attachment was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
