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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
