Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
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 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
