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...
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order against appellant's property despite being issued 190 days after the PAO, as the intervening COVID-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) was properly excluded per SC's suo moto order. The tribunal confirmed that properties can be attached even when held by non-accused individuals who possess proceeds of crime, following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The appellant failed to prove legitimate cash payment of 14,00,000 to the main accused, while evidence showed the appellant received 5,00,000 and an RTGS transfer of 14,00,000 from the accused, which was subsequently transferred to a company owned by the same accused-establishing the appellant's role in layering and laundering proceeds of crime. Appeal dismissed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order against appellant's property despite being issued 190 days after the PAO, as the intervening COVID-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) was properly excluded per SC's suo moto order. The tribunal confirmed that properties can be attached even when held by non-accused individuals who possess proceeds of crime, following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The appellant failed to prove legitimate cash payment of 14,00,000 to the main accused, while evidence showed the appellant received 5,00,000 and an RTGS transfer of 14,00,000 from the accused, which was subsequently transferred to a company owned by the same accused-establishing the appellant's role in layering and laundering proceeds of crime. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
