Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
