Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
AT allowed the appeal and disposed it, holding that the impugned provisional attachment order expired by force of s.8(3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 because the investigation was not completed within 365 days and no prosecution was pending before a court on the 365th day. The Tribunal concluded that an interim order of the Apex Court did not operate to suspend the time-limit for completion of investigation, because the respondent nevertheless filed the prosecution complaint during the interim period and could not show a restraint on such filing; consequently the continuation of the attachment could not be sustained and the impugned order stands terminated.
AT allowed the appeal and disposed it, holding that the impugned provisional attachment order expired by force of s.8(3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 because the investigation was not completed within 365 days and no prosecution was pending before a court on the 365th day. The Tribunal concluded that an interim order of the Apex Court did not operate to suspend the time-limit for completion of investigation, because the respondent nevertheless filed the prosecution complaint during the interim period and could not show a restraint on such filing; consequently the continuation of the attachment could not be sustained and the impugned order stands terminated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
