Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 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.