Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
