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" ?
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.