Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.