Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the petitioner's detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitioner alleged procedural violations in his arrest, claiming grounds were not provided in writing as required by Section 19(1) of PMLA. The court determined that the petitioner had confined his challenge to the remand order dated 09.06.2023 without questioning the earlier remand order of 08.06.2023, thus implicitly accepting its validity. The court noted that the petitioner had signed acknowledgments of receiving arrest grounds and subsequently pursued bail on merits rather than challenging procedural defects. Finding no impropriety in the contested remand order and that procedural requirements were satisfied, the court declined to interfere.
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the petitioner's detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitioner alleged procedural violations in his arrest, claiming grounds were not provided in writing as required by Section 19(1) of PMLA. The court determined that the petitioner had confined his challenge to the remand order dated 09.06.2023 without questioning the earlier remand order of 08.06.2023, thus implicitly accepting its validity. The court noted that the petitioner had signed acknowledgments of receiving arrest grounds and subsequently pursued bail on merits rather than challenging procedural defects. Finding no impropriety in the contested remand order and that procedural requirements were satisfied, the court declined to interfere.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
