Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The text analyses provisional attachments under the PMLA,...
Proceeds of crime and property equivalent in value: failure to explain lawful source sustains attachment; lack of required notice can vitiate confirmation.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The text analyses provisional attachments under the PMLA, focusing on attachment of properties as proceeds of crime or property equivalent in value and the burden on alleged third parties to explain lawful source of funds; where explanations and documentary corroboration are absent, attachments were sustained. It identifies instances where non-service of the notice required by the second proviso to Section 8(1) vitiated confirmation of attachment and led to allowance of an appeal. It clarifies that acquittal in the predicate offence does not automatically release attached property if money laundering proceedings continue, and stresses inadequate explanations for cash purchases and third party parking arrangements.
The text analyses provisional attachments under the PMLA, focusing on attachment of properties as proceeds of crime or property equivalent in value and the burden on alleged third parties to explain lawful source of funds; where explanations and documentary corroboration are absent, attachments were sustained. It identifies instances where non-service of the notice required by the second proviso to Section 8(1) vitiated confirmation of attachment and led to allowance of an appeal. It clarifies that acquittal in the predicate offence does not automatically release attached property if money laundering proceedings continue, and stresses inadequate explanations for cash purchases and third party parking arrangements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.