Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.