Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The petitioner, accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), sought bail. The court held that Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The prosecution alleged the petitioner influenced a bank to sanction loans to Kiran P.P., from which the petitioner received Rs. 14 crore. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations, including inconsistent statements, unexplained cash credits, and unaccounted capital in the petitioner's business. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty and denied bail, considering the serious nature of the accusations.
The petitioner, accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), sought bail. The court held that Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The prosecution alleged the petitioner influenced a bank to sanction loans to Kiran P.P., from which the petitioner received Rs. 14 crore. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations, including inconsistent statements, unexplained cash credits, and unaccounted capital in the petitioner's business. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty and denied bail, considering the serious nature of the accusations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
