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" ?
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.