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 quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that the order taking cognizance violated the mandatory first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which guarantees the accused a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denial of this right vitiates the cognizance itself, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void, without requiring the accused to prove prejudice or miscarriage of justice. It further rejected the argument that PMLA complaints are akin to charge sheets, affirming they are true complaints subject to BNSS provisions. The omission of explicit reference to complaints under special laws in Section 223 does not exclude the operation of the first proviso. The Court also ruled that inconsistent concessions by the ED are irrelevant to statutory interpretation. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order was declared legally invalid and set aside.
The HC quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that the order taking cognizance violated the mandatory first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which guarantees the accused a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denial of this right vitiates the cognizance itself, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void, without requiring the accused to prove prejudice or miscarriage of justice. It further rejected the argument that PMLA complaints are akin to charge sheets, affirming they are true complaints subject to BNSS provisions. The omission of explicit reference to complaints under special laws in Section 223 does not exclude the operation of the first proviso. The Court also ruled that inconsistent concessions by the ED are irrelevant to statutory interpretation. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order was declared legally invalid and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
