Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
Investigation deposits refunded after failed customs demands fall outside the statutory appellate pre-deposit interest regime and may attract compensa...
Resolution plan finality extinguishes unquantified operational-creditor claims and pending proceedings unless the approved plan expressly preserves th...
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 
