Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96556 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 Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants' names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.
Attachment under the Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants' names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.