Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The case involves a challenge to a seizure order issued u/s 8(3) of PMLA 2002. The investigation, which should have been completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, has not been concluded. The court held that since the investigation has not been completed, the order of seizure cannot continue. It was noted that if the investigation is not completed within the specified time frame, the attachment or seizure would lapse. Therefore, the impugned seizure order by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The case involves a challenge to a seizure order issued u/s 8(3) of PMLA 2002. The investigation, which should have been completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, has not been concluded. The court held that since the investigation has not been completed, the order of seizure cannot continue. It was noted that if the investigation is not completed within the specified time frame, the attachment or seizure would lapse. Therefore, the impugned seizure order by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
