Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
