Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned SJ judgment and reinstated the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and consequential proceedings. The court held the writ challenge under Art.226 was not maintainable as Whirlpool parameters were not attracted; no breach of natural justice occurred and the PAO is provisional pending adjudication. The HC confirmed a sufficient nexus between the scheduled predicate offence (fraud/misrepresentation) and the attached proceeds, endorsing the Directorate's tracing of enhanced value as proceeds of crime under s.3 PMLA. Compliance with s.66(2) PMLA was held not to be a condition precedent to issuance of a s.5 PAO.
The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned SJ judgment and reinstated the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and consequential proceedings. The court held the writ challenge under Art.226 was not maintainable as Whirlpool parameters were not attracted; no breach of natural justice occurred and the PAO is provisional pending adjudication. The HC confirmed a sufficient nexus between the scheduled predicate offence (fraud/misrepresentation) and the attached proceeds, endorsing the Directorate's tracing of enhanced value as proceeds of crime under s.3 PMLA. Compliance with s.66(2) PMLA was held not to be a condition precedent to issuance of a s.5 PAO.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
