Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The AT affirms dismissal of the appellant's challenge to a provisional attachment order under money-laundering law. The Tribunal, applying higher-court precedent and statutory definition of "proceeds of crime," held that where proceeds have been dissipated, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached. The respondents quantified proceeds at Rs.6,13,74,440, from which the appellant was shown to have received Rs.40,00,000; as those funds were not available, a property valued at Rs.16,60,000 acquired during the scheduled offence period was provisionally attached. Finding no merit in the sole ground of appeal, the AT dismissed the appeal and sustained the provisional attachment.
The AT affirms dismissal of the appellant's challenge to a provisional attachment order under money-laundering law. The Tribunal, applying higher-court precedent and statutory definition of "proceeds of crime," held that where proceeds have been dissipated, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached. The respondents quantified proceeds at Rs.6,13,74,440, from which the appellant was shown to have received Rs.40,00,000; as those funds were not available, a property valued at Rs.16,60,000 acquired during the scheduled offence period was provisionally attached. Finding no merit in the sole ground of appeal, the AT dismissed the appeal and sustained the provisional attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
