Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
