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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 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.