Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Money-laundering was treated as a continuing offence, so the PMLA was held applicable even though the properties were acquired before the 2009 amendment inserting Prevention of Corruption Act offences into the Schedule. Departmental permission or intimation for purchase did not prove lawful source of funds, and the appellants failed to establish licit acquisition or independent ownership. Prior seizure in predicate proceedings was distinguished from PMLA attachment, and attachment in third-party names was upheld even where some persons were not arraigned in the scheduled offence. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the provisional attachment and rejected the challenge to the properties as proceeds of crime.
Money-laundering was treated as a continuing offence, so the PMLA was held applicable even though the properties were acquired before the 2009 amendment inserting Prevention of Corruption Act offences into the Schedule. Departmental permission or intimation for purchase did not prove lawful source of funds, and the appellants failed to establish licit acquisition or independent ownership. Prior seizure in predicate proceedings was distinguished from PMLA attachment, and attachment in third-party names was upheld even where some persons were not arraigned in the scheduled offence. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the provisional attachment and rejected the challenge to the properties as proceeds of crime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.