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 dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the respondent company's bank account as proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found multiple FIRs led to ECIR/PAO against the accused and that the respondent remained the recipient of allegedly tainted funds; no written cancellation or forfeiture notice under the booking agreement was produced and the rooms were not used, supporting inference the funds were sheltered to avoid attachment. The appellant director was neither an accused nor subject to attachment, and lacked standing to challenge the order. Absent demonstrable lawful cancellation or written forfeiture, the attachment of amounts transferred to the respondent was affirmed.
The AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the respondent company's bank account as proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found multiple FIRs led to ECIR/PAO against the accused and that the respondent remained the recipient of allegedly tainted funds; no written cancellation or forfeiture notice under the booking agreement was produced and the rooms were not used, supporting inference the funds were sheltered to avoid attachment. The appellant director was neither an accused nor subject to attachment, and lacked standing to challenge the order. Absent demonstrable lawful cancellation or written forfeiture, the attachment of amounts transferred to the respondent was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
