Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
Diagnostic microcuvette classification follows sole-use analytical function, placing specialised disposable cuvettes with their analyser rather than g...
Customs Broker licensing proceedings fail when their offence-report foundation collapses and authorisation, advisory, and KYC duties remain unbreached...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
