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 of 68% of the immovable property, concluding that the PMLA amendments effective 15.02.2013 applied and that enforcement action was lawfully initiated post-amendment (ECIR registered 27.10.2015; PAO issued 26.07.2018, confirmed 11.01.2019). The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly handled proceeds of crime-cash deposits, inconsistent explanations about sales and transport, and reliance on false documentation-yielding identified laundered proceeds of Rs. 11,41,800.00. Reliance on contrary interim orders and family-settlement title were rejected; proceedings under the PMLA and attachment were sustained as legally valid and proportionate.
The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment of 68% of the immovable property, concluding that the PMLA amendments effective 15.02.2013 applied and that enforcement action was lawfully initiated post-amendment (ECIR registered 27.10.2015; PAO issued 26.07.2018, confirmed 11.01.2019). The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly handled proceeds of crime-cash deposits, inconsistent explanations about sales and transport, and reliance on false documentation-yielding identified laundered proceeds of Rs. 11,41,800.00. Reliance on contrary interim orders and family-settlement title were rejected; proceedings under the PMLA and attachment were sustained as legally valid and proportionate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.