Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
AT affirmed the provisional attachment order, dismissing the appellant's challenge. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent diversion of Rs. 5,61,85,590 constituted proceeds of crime, and because the proceeds were not traceable, respondent permissibly provisionally attached immovable property of equivalent value under the relevant money-laundering regime. The PAO expressly limits attachment to Rs. 5,61,85,590, not the larger claimed sum, and attachment was not for an amount exceeding proceeds. The appellant's contention that the property was acquired pre-offence and other arguments were unavailing; no illegality or infirmity was found in the attachment, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
AT affirmed the provisional attachment order, dismissing the appellant's challenge. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent diversion of Rs. 5,61,85,590 constituted proceeds of crime, and because the proceeds were not traceable, respondent permissibly provisionally attached immovable property of equivalent value under the relevant money-laundering regime. The PAO expressly limits attachment to Rs. 5,61,85,590, not the larger claimed sum, and attachment was not for an amount exceeding proceeds. The appellant's contention that the property was acquired pre-offence and other arguments were unavailing; no illegality or infirmity was found in the attachment, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
