Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5321 to 5340 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.