Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
This case deals with the admissibility of statements made u/s 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the accused is in judicial custody in another case investigated by the same agency. The key points are: The Supreme Court held that when an accused is in custody under PMLA, any statement given to the same investigating agency u/s 50 is inadmissible against the maker, as the person is not operating with a free mind. Such statements would violate the principles of fair play and justice, and the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court distinguished its earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, stating that it had anticipated scenarios where Section 25 of the Evidence Act (confessions to police officers) may apply. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with directions to the trial court. Allegations of misuse of jail facilities were not considered relevant for denying bail.
This case deals with the admissibility of statements made u/s 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the accused is in judicial custody in another case investigated by the same agency. The key points are: The Supreme Court held that when an accused is in custody under PMLA, any statement given to the same investigating agency u/s 50 is inadmissible against the maker, as the person is not operating with a free mind. Such statements would violate the principles of fair play and justice, and the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court distinguished its earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, stating that it had anticipated scenarios where Section 25 of the Evidence Act (confessions to police officers) may apply. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with directions to the trial court. Allegations of misuse of jail facilities were not considered relevant for denying bail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
