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 AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate.
The AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.