Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
