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...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
