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...
The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment order, finding that Rs. 8 crores in the appellant's possession constituted proceeds of crime arising from a Ponzi-like scheme and were not repaid to investors with requisite proof. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that Rs. 1.50 crores and other sums constituted refunds or legitimate investments, noting admissions under Section 50(2) of PMLA and inconsistent, self-created documentation. Payments totaling Rs. 2,12,76,710/- for doctors, equipment and utilities were not substantiated as repayments of the secured amounts. The AT also affirmed that property valuation must reflect value at execution/possession and, absent credible proof of a Rs.100 crore valuation, attachment limited to proceeds was appropriate. Appeal dismissed.
The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment order, finding that Rs. 8 crores in the appellant's possession constituted proceeds of crime arising from a Ponzi-like scheme and were not repaid to investors with requisite proof. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that Rs. 1.50 crores and other sums constituted refunds or legitimate investments, noting admissions under Section 50(2) of PMLA and inconsistent, self-created documentation. Payments totaling Rs. 2,12,76,710/- for doctors, equipment and utilities were not substantiated as repayments of the secured amounts. The AT also affirmed that property valuation must reflect value at execution/possession and, absent credible proof of a Rs.100 crore valuation, attachment limited to proceeds was appropriate. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
