Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
