Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
