Section 10A and related deductions: Tribunal rejects separate-undertaking claim, but allows loss set-off, ESOP cost and foreign tax credit in principl...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4201 to 4220 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Provisional attachment under a PAO was upheld on the basis that available investigative material, including recovered bribe money and an unquashed FIR, established a prima facie case of money laundering; the appellant's contention that no crime was committed was rejected. The Tribunal directed that attachment must be limited to quantifiable proceeds of crime rather than the entire contract value, recognising legitimate manufacturing costs and expenses. The respondent was ordered to quantify the recoverable proceeds (focusing on the profit/illicit portion) and reassess the provisional attachment within the specified four week period.
Provisional attachment under a PAO was upheld on the basis that available investigative material, including recovered bribe money and an unquashed FIR, established a prima facie case of money laundering; the appellant's contention that no crime was committed was rejected. The Tribunal directed that attachment must be limited to quantifiable proceeds of crime rather than the entire contract value, recognising legitimate manufacturing costs and expenses. The respondent was ordered to quantify the recoverable proceeds (focusing on the profit/illicit portion) and reassess the provisional attachment within the specified four week period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.