Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 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 Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, by virtue of S.26(4), possesses wide appellate jurisdiction, including the inherent power to remand matters to the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside an order of confirmation of provisional attachment under S.8. The Tribunal's interference in the present case was based on breach of principles of natural justice, as the notice lacked communication of "reasons to believe," thereby vitiating the confirmation order but not the underlying proceedings. HC clarified that remand merely restores proceedings to the stage before confirmation and does not invalidate the provisional attachment by efflux of time. Finding no statutory bar or jurisdictional error, HC dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit.
HC held that the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, by virtue of S.26(4), possesses wide appellate jurisdiction, including the inherent power to remand matters to the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside an order of confirmation of provisional attachment under S.8. The Tribunal's interference in the present case was based on breach of principles of natural justice, as the notice lacked communication of "reasons to believe," thereby vitiating the confirmation order but not the underlying proceedings. HC clarified that remand merely restores proceedings to the stage before confirmation and does not invalidate the provisional attachment by efflux of time. Finding no statutory bar or jurisdictional error, HC dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
