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 validity of the provisional attachment order under the PBPT Act over cash seized from the appellant, holding that unaccounted cash qualifies as movable benami property under Section 2(26) and Section 2(8) of the Act. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that a benami transaction requires three parties, affirming that only a benamidar and beneficial owner are necessary. The appellant's failure to substantiate the source of Rs. 1.84 crore seized and reliance on inconsistent statements, including under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, led to the conclusion that Section 2(9)(D) applies. Filing of ITRs was held insufficient to exclude applicability of the PBPT Act, as unexplained income remains subject to confiscation irrespective of tax compliance. Consequently, the attachment and proceedings under the PBPT Act were affirmed against the appellant.
The AT upheld the validity of the provisional attachment order under the PBPT Act over cash seized from the appellant, holding that unaccounted cash qualifies as movable benami property under Section 2(26) and Section 2(8) of the Act. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that a benami transaction requires three parties, affirming that only a benamidar and beneficial owner are necessary. The appellant's failure to substantiate the source of Rs. 1.84 crore seized and reliance on inconsistent statements, including under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, led to the conclusion that Section 2(9)(D) applies. Filing of ITRs was held insufficient to exclude applicability of the PBPT Act, as unexplained income remains subject to confiscation irrespective of tax compliance. Consequently, the attachment and proceedings under the PBPT Act were affirmed against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
