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...
Proceeds of crime were diverted from a sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1530.99 crores for an unauthorized purpose, constituting a predicate offence for money laundering. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), providing reasons to believe as mandated by Section 19. The High Court upheld the arrest, ruling that the ED complied with statutory requirements by apprising the accused of reasons and grounds for arrest at the time of arrest. Non-recovery of substantial proceeds of crime necessitated the arrest. The arrest grounds were self-sufficient and valid, conforming to Section 19 of PMLA. An illegal arrest breaching Section 19 requirements would invalidate the arrest and prevent re-arrest on the same grounds, infringing constitutional rights.
Proceeds of crime were diverted from a sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1530.99 crores for an unauthorized purpose, constituting a predicate offence for money laundering. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), providing reasons to believe as mandated by Section 19. The High Court upheld the arrest, ruling that the ED complied with statutory requirements by apprising the accused of reasons and grounds for arrest at the time of arrest. Non-recovery of substantial proceeds of crime necessitated the arrest. The arrest grounds were self-sufficient and valid, conforming to Section 19 of PMLA. An illegal arrest breaching Section 19 requirements would invalidate the arrest and prevent re-arrest on the same grounds, infringing constitutional rights.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
