Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the relevant clause, which came into effect on the date of publication. Consequently, the 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. The Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent amendment is considered clarificatory and applied retrospectively only when the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, making interpretation impossible without the amendment. However, no such difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002, making the amendment substantive and prospective. Procedural amendments apply retrospectively to actions after the date they come into force, even if the claim is of an anterior date. Since the Directorate complied with the amended law by filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, the continued attachment of properties during the pendency is valid.
The notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the relevant clause, which came into effect on the date of publication. Consequently, the 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. The Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent amendment is considered clarificatory and applied retrospectively only when the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, making interpretation impossible without the amendment. However, no such difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002, making the amendment substantive and prospective. Procedural amendments apply retrospectively to actions after the date they come into force, even if the claim is of an anterior date. Since the Directorate complied with the amended law by filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, the continued attachment of properties during the pendency is valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
