Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order rejecting their discharge petition in a money laundering case. The court held that there were prima facie materials showing illicit mining and generation of proceeds of crime valued at Rs. 261.89 crores. It observed that u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, concealment of the proceeds of crime itself constitutes the offence of money laundering. The prosecution need not demonstrate the money trail or identify the proceeds of crime if they have been concealed. The court invoked the presumption u/s 24(b) of the Act against the petitioners, considering the quantum of money involved and the nature of allegations. The petitioners have to rebut the presumption during the trial. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the lower court rejecting the discharge petition.
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order rejecting their discharge petition in a money laundering case. The court held that there were prima facie materials showing illicit mining and generation of proceeds of crime valued at Rs. 261.89 crores. It observed that u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, concealment of the proceeds of crime itself constitutes the offence of money laundering. The prosecution need not demonstrate the money trail or identify the proceeds of crime if they have been concealed. The court invoked the presumption u/s 24(b) of the Act against the petitioners, considering the quantum of money involved and the nature of allegations. The petitioners have to rebut the presumption during the trial. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the lower court rejecting the discharge petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
