Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT allowed appeal and confirmed attachment of respondent chartered accountant's bank account containing Rs. 3,34,585.89. Respondent claimed funds represented legitimate professional fees for issuing project completion certificates to Tayal Group companies. AT rejected good faith defense, finding respondent professionally negligent in relying on fabricated documents supplied by loan defaulters without independent verification. Such negligence enabled bank fraud against UCO Bank and constituted either blind faith or collusion with accused persons. AT held professional negligence cannot justify claiming attached amounts as legitimate fees. Adjudicating Authority erred in refusing to confirm provisional attachment order based solely on professional fees argument without considering underlying negligence. Funds prima facie represented proceeds of crime under money laundering provisions.
AT allowed appeal and confirmed attachment of respondent chartered accountant's bank account containing Rs. 3,34,585.89. Respondent claimed funds represented legitimate professional fees for issuing project completion certificates to Tayal Group companies. AT rejected good faith defense, finding respondent professionally negligent in relying on fabricated documents supplied by loan defaulters without independent verification. Such negligence enabled bank fraud against UCO Bank and constituted either blind faith or collusion with accused persons. AT held professional negligence cannot justify claiming attached amounts as legitimate fees. Adjudicating Authority erred in refusing to confirm provisional attachment order based solely on professional fees argument without considering underlying negligence. Funds prima facie represented proceeds of crime under money laundering provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
