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...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
