PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proceedings under s.3 read with s.70 PMLA were challenged as without jurisdiction where the ECIR and all consequential attachment/freezing actions were founded solely on two predicate FIRs in which closure reports for "mistake of fact" had been accepted by the Magistrate. Since money-laundering is dependent on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, acceptance of the final reports meant there was, at that stage, no subsisting scheduled offence and the ED could not hold a bona fide "reason to believe" the property was "proceeds of crime"; suspicion or vague information was insufficient. The 2019 Explanation to s.2(1)(u) was held clarificatory and did not expand "proceeds of crime" beyond a scheduled offence nexus. Petition allowed. - HC
Proceedings under s.3 read with s.70 PMLA were challenged as without jurisdiction where the ECIR and all consequential attachment/freezing actions were founded solely on two predicate FIRs in which closure reports for "mistake of fact" had been accepted by the Magistrate. Since money-laundering is dependent on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, acceptance of the final reports meant there was, at that stage, no subsisting scheduled offence and the ED could not hold a bona fide "reason to believe" the property was "proceeds of crime"; suspicion or vague information was insufficient. The 2019 Explanation to s.2(1)(u) was held clarificatory and did not expand "proceeds of crime" beyond a scheduled offence nexus. Petition allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
