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 HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Single Judge judgment and upheld the Directorate’s provisional attachment order under Section 5 of the PMLA. The Court held the allocation letter to constitute “property” within Section 2(1)(v) and that misrepresentation in obtaining the allocation generated “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u), thereby attracting an offence under Section 3; continued possession, utilisation and monetisation of the coal constituted ongoing laundering. The HC rejected a pre-allocation temporal cutoff and affirmed the Directorate’s jurisdiction to attach the quantified value of extracted coal where a prima facie nexus to predicate offences and proceeds was established and the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of taint.
The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Single Judge judgment and upheld the Directorate’s provisional attachment order under Section 5 of the PMLA. The Court held the allocation letter to constitute “property” within Section 2(1)(v) and that misrepresentation in obtaining the allocation generated “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u), thereby attracting an offence under Section 3; continued possession, utilisation and monetisation of the coal constituted ongoing laundering. The HC rejected a pre-allocation temporal cutoff and affirmed the Directorate’s jurisdiction to attach the quantified value of extracted coal where a prima facie nexus to predicate offences and proceeds was established and the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of taint.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
