Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
AT dismissed the appeal in money laundering case, holding that where a person possesses assets apparently acquired from proceeds of crime, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant to justify the source of such assets. In cases involving illegal income sources like terrorist funding or drug trafficking, investigation agencies can presume entire assets as proceeds of crime if the individual cannot substantiate legitimate income sources. The tribunal emphasized that non-quantification of exact proceeds does not invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly when unexplained assets suggest criminal origin.
AT dismissed the appeal in money laundering case, holding that where a person possesses assets apparently acquired from proceeds of crime, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant to justify the source of such assets. In cases involving illegal income sources like terrorist funding or drug trafficking, investigation agencies can presume entire assets as proceeds of crime if the individual cannot substantiate legitimate income sources. The tribunal emphasized that non-quantification of exact proceeds does not invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly when unexplained assets suggest criminal origin.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
