AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
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.