Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002, affirming the availability of statutory remedies through the prescribed appellate hierarchy. It was held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass the comprehensive and efficacious statutory framework, except in extraordinary circumstances. The provisional attachment order, listing specific properties as proceeds of crime, supersedes any prior notices issued under Section 54. Only officers empowered under Section 5 can effect such attachment. The appellants retain the right to contest the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority and exhaust all statutory remedies. The court noted an interim stay on proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and directed that the 30-day period to file a reply under Section 8(1) commences anew from the date specified by the HC. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002, affirming the availability of statutory remedies through the prescribed appellate hierarchy. It was held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass the comprehensive and efficacious statutory framework, except in extraordinary circumstances. The provisional attachment order, listing specific properties as proceeds of crime, supersedes any prior notices issued under Section 54. Only officers empowered under Section 5 can effect such attachment. The appellants retain the right to contest the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority and exhaust all statutory remedies. The court noted an interim stay on proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and directed that the 30-day period to file a reply under Section 8(1) commences anew from the date specified by the HC. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
