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 case pertains to the grant of regular bail to an Indian national accused of committing an offence under foreign law, which is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The key points are: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings based on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from U.S. authorities, alleging that the accused stole cryptocurrencies and transferred the proceeds to India. The court examined the applicability of PMLA in cases where the predicate offence occurred outside India but the proceeds were transferred to India. The court held that for offences under the first category defined in Section 2(1)(ra)(i) of PMLA, where the predicate offence occurred outside India but the proceeds were transferred to India, the corresponding foreign law needs to be proved as a question of fact during the trial by examining experts. Judicial notice cannot be taken of the corresponding foreign law at this stage. The court found that the foundational facts, i.e., the alleged crime committed in the U.S. being a scheduled offence and the amount received by the accused being proceeds of crime, have not been established even prima facie. Therefore, the burden of proof u/s 45 of PMLA does not shift to the accused. The court observed that the delay in commencing the trial, the custody period exceeding.
The case pertains to the grant of regular bail to an Indian national accused of committing an offence under foreign law, which is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The key points are: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings based on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from U.S. authorities, alleging that the accused stole cryptocurrencies and transferred the proceeds to India. The court examined the applicability of PMLA in cases where the predicate offence occurred outside India but the proceeds were transferred to India. The court held that for offences under the first category defined in Section 2(1)(ra)(i) of PMLA, where the predicate offence occurred outside India but the proceeds were transferred to India, the corresponding foreign law needs to be proved as a question of fact during the trial by examining experts. Judicial notice cannot be taken of the corresponding foreign law at this stage. The court found that the foundational facts, i.e., the alleged crime committed in the U.S. being a scheduled offence and the amount received by the accused being proceeds of crime, have not been established even prima facie. Therefore, the burden of proof u/s 45 of PMLA does not shift to the accused. The court observed that the delay in commencing the trial, the custody period exceeding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
