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...
HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the Respondent's continued retention of the Appellant's property was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA. The Court affirmed that Section 20(1) imposes a substantive, mandatory requirement of a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer post-seizure under Section 17, without which there is nothing for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm under Section 8(3)(a). While rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the application of Section 8(3)(a) in light of binding SC precedent, the HC concluded the retention violated Article 300A and could not be sustained.
HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the Respondent's continued retention of the Appellant's property was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA. The Court affirmed that Section 20(1) imposes a substantive, mandatory requirement of a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer post-seizure under Section 17, without which there is nothing for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm under Section 8(3)(a). While rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the application of Section 8(3)(a) in light of binding SC precedent, the HC concluded the retention violated Article 300A and could not be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
