Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 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 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.