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...
AT upheld the provisional attachment order under PMLA, finding the appellant failed to disclose the source of funds for property acquisition valued at Rs. 24 lakhs. The tribunal determined the property was purchased through fraudulent means, with significant undervaluation and suspicious financial transactions. The appellant, despite being a legal professional, could not substantiate the legitimate origin of funds. The court rejected arguments about property valuation and confirmed the attachment, emphasizing the obligation to demonstrate transparent fund sources. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the original attachment order as proceeds of crime under section 8(1) of the PMLA.
AT upheld the provisional attachment order under PMLA, finding the appellant failed to disclose the source of funds for property acquisition valued at Rs. 24 lakhs. The tribunal determined the property was purchased through fraudulent means, with significant undervaluation and suspicious financial transactions. The appellant, despite being a legal professional, could not substantiate the legitimate origin of funds. The court rejected arguments about property valuation and confirmed the attachment, emphasizing the obligation to demonstrate transparent fund sources. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the original attachment order as proceeds of crime under section 8(1) of the PMLA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
