Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4809 
Join Channel 
