Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
