Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
The AT partially allowed the appeal, finding procedural defects in the provisional attachment order (PAO) for a specific property. The tribunal determined that the PAO was issued after amendments to PMLA incorporating Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, thus not retrospectively invalid. However, the order was set aside due to failure to issue show cause notice (SCN) to the co-owner as mandated under Section 8(1) of PMLA. Consequently, the PAO for the specific flat at Patel Nagar was quashed, with the attachment order being declared invalid for procedural non-compliance.
The AT partially allowed the appeal, finding procedural defects in the provisional attachment order (PAO) for a specific property. The tribunal determined that the PAO was issued after amendments to PMLA incorporating Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, thus not retrospectively invalid. However, the order was set aside due to failure to issue show cause notice (SCN) to the co-owner as mandated under Section 8(1) of PMLA. Consequently, the PAO for the specific flat at Patel Nagar was quashed, with the attachment order being declared invalid for procedural non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.