Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
