Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Attachment under the PMLA prevails over a secured creditor's claim to priority under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act, because the PMLA operates for confiscation of proceeds of crime and has an overriding effect. The Tribunal's view that the recovery statutes displaced PMLA attachment was unsustainable, and the release of the attached properties on that basis was set aside. Where attachment has been confirmed and the criminal process has commenced, a claimant with a legitimate interest must pursue release or restoration before the Special Court under section 8(8) of the PMLA. The respondent-Bank was therefore given liberty to seek that remedy, while factual issues on proceeds of crime were left open.
Attachment under the PMLA prevails over a secured creditor's claim to priority under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act, because the PMLA operates for confiscation of proceeds of crime and has an overriding effect. The Tribunal's view that the recovery statutes displaced PMLA attachment was unsustainable, and the release of the attached properties on that basis was set aside. Where attachment has been confirmed and the criminal process has commenced, a claimant with a legitimate interest must pursue release or restoration before the Special Court under section 8(8) of the PMLA. The respondent-Bank was therefore given liberty to seek that remedy, while factual issues on proceeds of crime were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.