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...
The court held that the competent authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be restrained from exercising their statutory powers, even if the predicate offence has been quashed or the victims have received back the money involved. Mere repayment of money or quashment of the FIR in the predicate offence does not absolve the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. The authorities retain the power to summon, investigate, and trace the proceeds of crime under the PMLA. Issuing a writ of mandamus to forbear the authorities from summoning any person under the PMLA would defeat the very purpose and objective of the Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition seeking to restrain the authorities from invoking the PMLA provisions against the petitioner.
The court held that the competent authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be restrained from exercising their statutory powers, even if the predicate offence has been quashed or the victims have received back the money involved. Mere repayment of money or quashment of the FIR in the predicate offence does not absolve the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. The authorities retain the power to summon, investigate, and trace the proceeds of crime under the PMLA. Issuing a writ of mandamus to forbear the authorities from summoning any person under the PMLA would defeat the very purpose and objective of the Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition seeking to restrain the authorities from invoking the PMLA provisions against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
