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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
