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 appeal challenges the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the new law governing tribunals, including the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, has been enacted based on Supreme Court observations. While the Adjudicating Authority is required to pass reasoned orders, it operates under tight time-frames and cannot be expected to address every issue raised through miscellaneous applications. The appellant's contention that a Judicial Member must be present was rejected, as no such ratio was laid down in the cited cases. The court also clarified that the 'reasons to believe' recorded u/s 17 for search and seizure need not be provided at the initial stage, as it is an administrative process, and parties are given an opportunity for hearing before confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
This appeal challenges the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the new law governing tribunals, including the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, has been enacted based on Supreme Court observations. While the Adjudicating Authority is required to pass reasoned orders, it operates under tight time-frames and cannot be expected to address every issue raised through miscellaneous applications. The appellant's contention that a Judicial Member must be present was rejected, as no such ratio was laid down in the cited cases. The court also clarified that the 'reasons to believe' recorded u/s 17 for search and seizure need not be provided at the initial stage, as it is an administrative process, and parties are given an opportunity for hearing before confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
