Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment of 20 immovable properties under the PML Act, concluding the appellant operated a Ponzi scheme through multiple entities, initially paying returns from new investors' funds before collapsing. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that incarceration precluded the risk of property dissipation, noting the appellant's ability to act via associates or power of attorney to frustrate proceedings. The attachment was upheld as an intermediate measure to preserve the properties for potential confiscation upon conviction, without affecting possession unless exceptional circumstances arise. The AT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the attachment order, thereby affirming the restraint on the properties pending trial.
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment of 20 immovable properties under the PML Act, concluding the appellant operated a Ponzi scheme through multiple entities, initially paying returns from new investors' funds before collapsing. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that incarceration precluded the risk of property dissipation, noting the appellant's ability to act via associates or power of attorney to frustrate proceedings. The attachment was upheld as an intermediate measure to preserve the properties for potential confiscation upon conviction, without affecting possession unless exceptional circumstances arise. The AT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the attachment order, thereby affirming the restraint on the properties pending trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
