Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
