ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
