Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the clause, which came into effect on the same date. The respondent Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. The prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within the limitation period of 90 days from 19.04.2018. The Supreme Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit case clarified that a subsequent amendment can be considered clarificatory or declaratory of the previous law only if the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, and it was impossible to reasonably interpret the provision without the amendment. In the present case, neither the amendment stated it was clarificatory nor any such implication arose, and no difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002 provisions without the amendment. The appellant's contention that the provisionally attached properties were liable to be released due to the respondent's failure to file a prosecution complaint within 90 days of the AA's order dated 19.01.2015 is without merit. The 90-day period commenced from 19.04.2018, and the respondent complied by filing the prosecution complaint within this period. The continued attachment of properties during the pendency of proceedings arising from the prosecution complaint is not illegal. The appeal is.
The notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the clause, which came into effect on the same date. The respondent Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. The prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within the limitation period of 90 days from 19.04.2018. The Supreme Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit case clarified that a subsequent amendment can be considered clarificatory or declaratory of the previous law only if the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, and it was impossible to reasonably interpret the provision without the amendment. In the present case, neither the amendment stated it was clarificatory nor any such implication arose, and no difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002 provisions without the amendment. The appellant's contention that the provisionally attached properties were liable to be released due to the respondent's failure to file a prosecution complaint within 90 days of the AA's order dated 19.01.2015 is without merit. The 90-day period commenced from 19.04.2018, and the respondent complied by filing the prosecution complaint within this period. The continued attachment of properties during the pendency of proceedings arising from the prosecution complaint is not illegal. The appeal is.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
