Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
