Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
