Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the application challenging the freezing orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate u/ss 17 and 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court held that the phrase "for the purposes of investigation" in the notice u/s 17(1-A) was sufficient justification for the Enforcement Directorate's actions, considering the financial trail linking the petitioner company to an entity under investigation. Section 17(1-A) allows freezing of property when seizure is not possible, while Section 17(2) mandates forwarding reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope, preserving secrecy. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous matter where proceedings were stayed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court dismissed the application challenging the freezing orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate u/ss 17 and 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court held that the phrase "for the purposes of investigation" in the notice u/s 17(1-A) was sufficient justification for the Enforcement Directorate's actions, considering the financial trail linking the petitioner company to an entity under investigation. Section 17(1-A) allows freezing of property when seizure is not possible, while Section 17(2) mandates forwarding reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope, preserving secrecy. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous matter where proceedings were stayed by the Supreme Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
