Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Provisional attachment under the PMLA was upheld where the order itself recorded that the immovable property represented proceeds of crime, so there was no need for later supplementation of reasons. The Court held that attachment is confined to property having a nexus with the scheduled offence; property acquired before commission of the offence does not ordinarily fall within the definition of proceeds of crime, and equivalent-value attachment is limited to property derived from criminal activity taken or held outside India. However, the appellant failed to prove on the record that the attached property was in fact acquired before the alleged offence period, so the challenge to attachment failed.
Provisional attachment under the PMLA was upheld where the order itself recorded that the immovable property represented proceeds of crime, so there was no need for later supplementation of reasons. The Court held that attachment is confined to property having a nexus with the scheduled offence; property acquired before commission of the offence does not ordinarily fall within the definition of proceeds of crime, and equivalent-value attachment is limited to property derived from criminal activity taken or held outside India. However, the appellant failed to prove on the record that the attached property was in fact acquired before the alleged offence period, so the challenge to attachment failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.