Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
