Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The AT dismissed appeals challenging property attachment under money laundering provisions. Despite appellants not being named in the predicate offence FIR or chargesheet, the tribunal held that properties can be attached from any person possessing proceeds of crime, following Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The corporate appellants, though non-corporeal juristic persons, could not claim immunity as they were controlled by accused shareholders who layered criminal proceeds through these entities. The ED established reasonable belief that properties constituted proceeds of crime through evidence of foreign remittances, layering activities, and nexus with predicate offences. Appellants failed to demonstrate legitimate income sources or break the connection to criminal proceeds. The attachment was deemed lawful and properly confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
The AT dismissed appeals challenging property attachment under money laundering provisions. Despite appellants not being named in the predicate offence FIR or chargesheet, the tribunal held that properties can be attached from any person possessing proceeds of crime, following Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The corporate appellants, though non-corporeal juristic persons, could not claim immunity as they were controlled by accused shareholders who layered criminal proceeds through these entities. The ED established reasonable belief that properties constituted proceeds of crime through evidence of foreign remittances, layering activities, and nexus with predicate offences. Appellants failed to demonstrate legitimate income sources or break the connection to criminal proceeds. The attachment was deemed lawful and properly confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.