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 set aside provisional attachment orders under money laundering proceedings against two appellants who had obtained independent loans from Syndicate Bank totaling Rs. 4.08 crores and Rs. 4.98 crores for purchasing office units. The respondent erroneously treated these loan amounts as proceeds of crime despite the loans being unconnected to the underlying fraud scheme involving forged cheques and fictitious LIC policies. The appellants had fully repaid the loans with proper NOCs issued by the bank. The AT found that professional fees received by one appellant were legitimately disclosed in ITR and service tax returns prior to the FIR. The respondent failed to justify expanding the case scope beyond original FIR allegations, particularly when banks like IDBI, DHFL, and UCO had issued NOCs confirming loan repayments. Both appeals were allowed.
The AT set aside provisional attachment orders under money laundering proceedings against two appellants who had obtained independent loans from Syndicate Bank totaling Rs. 4.08 crores and Rs. 4.98 crores for purchasing office units. The respondent erroneously treated these loan amounts as proceeds of crime despite the loans being unconnected to the underlying fraud scheme involving forged cheques and fictitious LIC policies. The appellants had fully repaid the loans with proper NOCs issued by the bank. The AT found that professional fees received by one appellant were legitimately disclosed in ITR and service tax returns prior to the FIR. The respondent failed to justify expanding the case scope beyond original FIR allegations, particularly when banks like IDBI, DHFL, and UCO had issued NOCs confirming loan repayments. Both appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.