Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
AT determined that ED's property attachment was valid under PMLA. The tribunal held that properties can be considered proceeds of crime even if acquired prior to predicate offence, based on appellants' habitual criminal involvement and inability to prove legitimate income source. Appellants failed to discharge burden of proof under Section 24 regarding legal acquisition of assets. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging ED's power to provisionally attach properties before criminal conviction, emphasizing PMLA's objective of preventing asset dissipation. Consequently, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding ED's attachment of properties as proceeds of crime.
AT determined that ED's property attachment was valid under PMLA. The tribunal held that properties can be considered proceeds of crime even if acquired prior to predicate offence, based on appellants' habitual criminal involvement and inability to prove legitimate income source. Appellants failed to discharge burden of proof under Section 24 regarding legal acquisition of assets. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging ED's power to provisionally attach properties before criminal conviction, emphasizing PMLA's objective of preventing asset dissipation. Consequently, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding ED's attachment of properties as proceeds of crime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
