Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the requirement of filing a Prosecution Complaint within 90 days of the confirmation of the PAO, as per Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, was met as the initial Prosecution Complaint was filed before the impugned order confirming the PAO. The filing of a supplementary complaint later, naming the appellant as an accused, did not impact the validity of the PAO, as the objective of PMLA is to immobilize the proceeds of crime, irrespective of it being in the hands of the accused or any other person, until confiscation. The appellant's bank accounts provided a 'parking place' for the proceeds of crime.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the requirement of filing a Prosecution Complaint within 90 days of the confirmation of the PAO, as per Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, was met as the initial Prosecution Complaint was filed before the impugned order confirming the PAO. The filing of a supplementary complaint later, naming the appellant as an accused, did not impact the validity of the PAO, as the objective of PMLA is to immobilize the proceeds of crime, irrespective of it being in the hands of the accused or any other person, until confiscation. The appellant's bank accounts provided a 'parking place' for the proceeds of crime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
