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 held that the properties were rightfully attached as proceeds of crime under PMLA, despite the absence of a direct predicate offence charge. The tribunal determined that the properties were infused with proceeds from narcotics-related activities, satisfying the legal threshold for attachment. The Enforcement Directorate established sufficient probable cause that the properties were derived from scheduled offences under NDPS Act. The court affirmed that properties can be attached even if purchased before the alleged criminal incident, particularly when proceeds of crime are unavailable. The procedural requirements under Section 5(1)(b) were met, and the attachment order was deemed valid. The appeal was consequently dismissed, maintaining the attachment of the properties until criminal proceedings conclude.
The AT held that the properties were rightfully attached as proceeds of crime under PMLA, despite the absence of a direct predicate offence charge. The tribunal determined that the properties were infused with proceeds from narcotics-related activities, satisfying the legal threshold for attachment. The Enforcement Directorate established sufficient probable cause that the properties were derived from scheduled offences under NDPS Act. The court affirmed that properties can be attached even if purchased before the alleged criminal incident, particularly when proceeds of crime are unavailable. The procedural requirements under Section 5(1)(b) were met, and the attachment order was deemed valid. The appeal was consequently dismissed, maintaining the attachment of the properties until criminal proceedings conclude.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.