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 allowed the appeal and held that the allocation of the coal block to the appellant company did not constitute proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Although the appellant company was convicted for the scheduled offence of obtaining the coal block allocation through misrepresentation, there was no predicate offence registered or investigated regarding the flow of investments from outside investors into the company. Consequently, the Directorate could not assume or investigate such a link, being empowered only to investigate money laundering offences and not the scheduled offence itself. In the absence of a finding on the misrepresentation or fraud in attracting investments during the investigation of the predicate offence, the attempt to treat the flow of funds as proceeds of crime failed.
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the allocation of the coal block to the appellant company did not constitute proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Although the appellant company was convicted for the scheduled offence of obtaining the coal block allocation through misrepresentation, there was no predicate offence registered or investigated regarding the flow of investments from outside investors into the company. Consequently, the Directorate could not assume or investigate such a link, being empowered only to investigate money laundering offences and not the scheduled offence itself. In the absence of a finding on the misrepresentation or fraud in attracting investments during the investigation of the predicate offence, the attempt to treat the flow of funds as proceeds of crime failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
