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 HC dismissed the appeal challenging PMLA 2002 proceedings jurisdiction. Appellants argued that offences committed between June 2005-2007 preceded the Act's June 2009 amendment, rendering proceedings invalid. The court held that appellants continued dealing with immovable properties and crime proceeds post-amendment, establishing jurisdiction. Regarding pecuniary limits, the court determined that proceedings under Section 2(1)(y) Clause (i) require no minimum value threshold. Additionally, the crime proceeds exceeding Rs. 5.24 crores surpassed both pre and post-amendment limits of Rs. 30 lakhs. The court clarified that pecuniary jurisdiction depends on fraud quantum rather than property values, and since alleged offences fall under Schedule Part-A rather than Part-B, pecuniary limitations are inapplicable.
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging PMLA 2002 proceedings jurisdiction. Appellants argued that offences committed between June 2005-2007 preceded the Act's June 2009 amendment, rendering proceedings invalid. The court held that appellants continued dealing with immovable properties and crime proceeds post-amendment, establishing jurisdiction. Regarding pecuniary limits, the court determined that proceedings under Section 2(1)(y) Clause (i) require no minimum value threshold. Additionally, the crime proceeds exceeding Rs. 5.24 crores surpassed both pre and post-amendment limits of Rs. 30 lakhs. The court clarified that pecuniary jurisdiction depends on fraud quantum rather than property values, and since alleged offences fall under Schedule Part-A rather than Part-B, pecuniary limitations are inapplicable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
