Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for customs duty evasion. The court held that any person (Directors) directly or indirectly involved in projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property is guilty of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA, punishable u/s 4. The person need not be an accused in the predicate offence. The petitioners' contention of not being involved in the company's day-to-day administration was rejected, as the PMLA complaint was for possession and use of proceeds of crime, not for offences committed as directors. The court reiterated that money laundering is a stand-alone offence distinct from the predicate offence, and the trial court should proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for customs duty evasion. The court held that any person (Directors) directly or indirectly involved in projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property is guilty of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA, punishable u/s 4. The person need not be an accused in the predicate offence. The petitioners' contention of not being involved in the company's day-to-day administration was rejected, as the PMLA complaint was for possession and use of proceeds of crime, not for offences committed as directors. The court reiterated that money laundering is a stand-alone offence distinct from the predicate offence, and the trial court should proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
