Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
AT ruled against Bank's challenge to property attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Despite Bank's prior mortgage rights and claim as fraud victim, AT upheld attachment order by Enforcement Directorate under Section 5 of PMLA. Following precedent in JM Financial Asset Reconstruction case, AT determined that mortgage status alone insufficient to override PMLA attachment. Bank's rights remain protected under Section 8(8) of PMLA, allowing pursuit of claims within statutory framework. Property attachment stands valid without affecting underlying title until formal confiscation. Bank retains right to pursue remedies under PMLA provisions. Appeal dismissed with no interference in attachment order.
AT ruled against Bank's challenge to property attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Despite Bank's prior mortgage rights and claim as fraud victim, AT upheld attachment order by Enforcement Directorate under Section 5 of PMLA. Following precedent in JM Financial Asset Reconstruction case, AT determined that mortgage status alone insufficient to override PMLA attachment. Bank's rights remain protected under Section 8(8) of PMLA, allowing pursuit of claims within statutory framework. Property attachment stands valid without affecting underlying title until formal confiscation. Bank retains right to pursue remedies under PMLA provisions. Appeal dismissed with no interference in attachment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.