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 appellant argued that no criminal activity was attributed to him or his business, nor was he named in the FIR or chargesheet filed by the CBI, and therefore, the proceedings u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, were non-existent and illegal. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized the cash and jewelry based on oral and documentary evidence available, indicating that the appellant had allegedly earned illegal commission as an intermediary in the import of DAP by IFFCO and IPL from JPMC, despite no requirement for an intermediary. Although the appellant was not named in the FIR or chargesheet, the ED could proceed with search and seizure under the PMLA to investigate further. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the proceedings were at the investigation stage, it would be improper to release the highly liquid cash and jewelry.
The appellant argued that no criminal activity was attributed to him or his business, nor was he named in the FIR or chargesheet filed by the CBI, and therefore, the proceedings u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, were non-existent and illegal. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized the cash and jewelry based on oral and documentary evidence available, indicating that the appellant had allegedly earned illegal commission as an intermediary in the import of DAP by IFFCO and IPL from JPMC, despite no requirement for an intermediary. Although the appellant was not named in the FIR or chargesheet, the ED could proceed with search and seizure under the PMLA to investigate further. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the proceedings were at the investigation stage, it would be improper to release the highly liquid cash and jewelry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
