Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming that attachment is permissible against any person in possession of proceeds of crime, not solely the accused. The appellant, though not named in the FIR or prosecution complaint, controlled companies receiving laundered proceeds linked to the predicate offence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge, emphasizing that the Act's provisions extend to third-party possession to prevent frustration of its objectives. Confiscation was deemed premature as the trial is incomplete. The attachment of property amounting to Rs. 11.35 crores, corresponding to laundered proceeds held by the appellant's controlled entities, was affirmed. No illegality was found in the attachment order, and the appeal was dismissed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming that attachment is permissible against any person in possession of proceeds of crime, not solely the accused. The appellant, though not named in the FIR or prosecution complaint, controlled companies receiving laundered proceeds linked to the predicate offence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge, emphasizing that the Act's provisions extend to third-party possession to prevent frustration of its objectives. Confiscation was deemed premature as the trial is incomplete. The attachment of property amounting to Rs. 11.35 crores, corresponding to laundered proceeds held by the appellant's controlled entities, was affirmed. No illegality was found in the attachment order, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
