Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT determined appellant engaged in money laundering through criminal conspiracy while employed as Senior Manager at MECON Ltd. Appellant received Rs. 1,65,45,000 from two companies through multiple bank accounts of relatives and friends. Forensic analysis revealed suspicious property transactions, including sale of Tritiya Tower property at inflated rates without justifiable source of funds. Appellant failed to produce credible evidence substantiating legitimate sale transactions. Provisional attachment order of properties was upheld as legally valid. The appellate tribunal conclusively found no procedural irregularities in the original attachment order and consequently dismissed the appeal, maintaining the provisional attachment of appellant's properties.
AT determined appellant engaged in money laundering through criminal conspiracy while employed as Senior Manager at MECON Ltd. Appellant received Rs. 1,65,45,000 from two companies through multiple bank accounts of relatives and friends. Forensic analysis revealed suspicious property transactions, including sale of Tritiya Tower property at inflated rates without justifiable source of funds. Appellant failed to produce credible evidence substantiating legitimate sale transactions. Provisional attachment order of properties was upheld as legally valid. The appellate tribunal conclusively found no procedural irregularities in the original attachment order and consequently dismissed the appeal, maintaining the provisional attachment of appellant's properties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.