Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the Single Judge's order upholding the Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA, affirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly where an alternative efficacious remedy exists and only upon proof of mala fides, patent arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court held a PAO is a provisional safeguard for future PMLA proceedings and non-compliance with the first proviso to s.5(1) is not per se fatal to attachment proceedings. The Court found the designated authority had cogent material to believe proceeds of crime were invested and limited attachment to properties acquired during 2009-2014; quashing was denied.
The HC dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the Single Judge's order upholding the Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA, affirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly where an alternative efficacious remedy exists and only upon proof of mala fides, patent arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court held a PAO is a provisional safeguard for future PMLA proceedings and non-compliance with the first proviso to s.5(1) is not per se fatal to attachment proceedings. The Court found the designated authority had cogent material to believe proceeds of crime were invested and limited attachment to properties acquired during 2009-2014; quashing was denied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
