Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant sought lapse of the attachment order u/s 5(1) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, questioning the legality of the order issued in relation to alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Provisional Attachment Order on 18.06.2021, followed by a Show Cause Notice on 04.08.2021, with the appellant filing a reply on 16.09.2021. Pleadings were completed on 23.09.2021, and the matter was listed for final hearing. While the Adjudicating Authority is required to pass an order within 180 days to prevent the attachment from lapsing u/s 26, the Appellate Tribunal considered the extraordinary situation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, which provided safeguards for termination of proceedings, including illustrative reference to provisions like the Arbitration Act, the Appellate Tribunal held that the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 20.08.2022 would apply. Excluding this period, the remaining period in this case was merely 26 days, less than the prescribed 180.
The appellant sought lapse of the attachment order u/s 5(1) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, questioning the legality of the order issued in relation to alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Provisional Attachment Order on 18.06.2021, followed by a Show Cause Notice on 04.08.2021, with the appellant filing a reply on 16.09.2021. Pleadings were completed on 23.09.2021, and the matter was listed for final hearing. While the Adjudicating Authority is required to pass an order within 180 days to prevent the attachment from lapsing u/s 26, the Appellate Tribunal considered the extraordinary situation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, which provided safeguards for termination of proceedings, including illustrative reference to provisions like the Arbitration Act, the Appellate Tribunal held that the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 20.08.2022 would apply. Excluding this period, the remaining period in this case was merely 26 days, less than the prescribed 180.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
