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...
Appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their immovable and movable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging lack of evidence that the properties were acquired from proceeds of crime. The court held that the appellants failed to provide reliable proof of their claimed sources of income like agriculture, rent, and contracts to explain the actual purchase consideration. Income tax returns filed belatedly after investigations were insufficient. Under PMLA, the burden lies on the noticee to show the sources of income/assets. The presumptions u/ss 23 and 24 operate against the appellants. The court rejected the contention that the definition of "proceeds of crime" was not considered, as the pre-amendment definition covered any property derived directly/indirectly from criminal activity related to scheduled offences. The attached property's value was rightly determined as Rs. 60,00,000/-, not Rs. 4,37,500/-. Finding no reason to interfere, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their immovable and movable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging lack of evidence that the properties were acquired from proceeds of crime. The court held that the appellants failed to provide reliable proof of their claimed sources of income like agriculture, rent, and contracts to explain the actual purchase consideration. Income tax returns filed belatedly after investigations were insufficient. Under PMLA, the burden lies on the noticee to show the sources of income/assets. The presumptions u/ss 23 and 24 operate against the appellants. The court rejected the contention that the definition of "proceeds of crime" was not considered, as the pre-amendment definition covered any property derived directly/indirectly from criminal activity related to scheduled offences. The attached property's value was rightly determined as Rs. 60,00,000/-, not Rs. 4,37,500/-. Finding no reason to interfere, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
