Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
