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 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.