Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
