Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
