Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must establish foundational facts, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA. Statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA while the accused was in custody are inadmissible against the maker and can only provide corroboration. The alleged cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner was not substantiated. The court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and constitutional courts must lean towards constitutionalism and rule of law. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with stringent conditions.
The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must establish foundational facts, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA. Statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA while the accused was in custody are inadmissible against the maker and can only provide corroboration. The alleged cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner was not substantiated. The court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and constitutional courts must lean towards constitutionalism and rule of law. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with stringent conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
