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 upheld the Provisional Attachment Order against property owned by Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused. The appellants' claim based on a civil court decree was rejected as Heera Retail was not party to the civil suit, rendering the decree non-binding on the company. The property had been purchased using proceeds of crime (diverted depositors' funds) prior to the decree. The Tribunal determined that the collusive decree obtained by appellants could not prevail against unchallenged sale deeds executed in favor of the accused's company. The attachment remains valid subject to the Supreme Court's directions regarding realization of investors' dues.
The AT upheld the Provisional Attachment Order against property owned by Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused. The appellants' claim based on a civil court decree was rejected as Heera Retail was not party to the civil suit, rendering the decree non-binding on the company. The property had been purchased using proceeds of crime (diverted depositors' funds) prior to the decree. The Tribunal determined that the collusive decree obtained by appellants could not prevail against unchallenged sale deeds executed in favor of the accused's company. The attachment remains valid subject to the Supreme Court's directions regarding realization of investors' dues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
