Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court examined whether it is appropriate to entertain a writ petition against a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the statutory period of 30 days when the Adjudicating Authority is required to examine it. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 5 of the Act, finding adequate safeguards to give an opportunity to the aggrieved person to file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The PAO is passed by the Director or authorized officer with reasons based on material in possession. Since sufficient remedies are available under the Act, the High Court held it inappropriate to entertain the petition before the 30-day period expires, except in rare and exceptional cases. The petitioner was relegated to avail alternative remedies, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to expedite the matter without observations on merits.
The High Court examined whether it is appropriate to entertain a writ petition against a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the statutory period of 30 days when the Adjudicating Authority is required to examine it. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 5 of the Act, finding adequate safeguards to give an opportunity to the aggrieved person to file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The PAO is passed by the Director or authorized officer with reasons based on material in possession. Since sufficient remedies are available under the Act, the High Court held it inappropriate to entertain the petition before the 30-day period expires, except in rare and exceptional cases. The petitioner was relegated to avail alternative remedies, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to expedite the matter without observations on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
