Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Provisional attachment under money-laundering law was examined on the quantification of proceeds of crime, tracing of tainted funds, and the sufficiency of reasons to believe. The Tribunal upheld the computation, finding that the attachment order explained the basis of recovery and that the appellant's requested deductions were unsupported or already accounted for in the quantified amount. It also accepted that the statutory reverse burden required the person concerned to explain the source of property after notice under Section 8(1), and rejected the challenge under Section 5(1) because the reasons for attachment were reflected in the order and supporting material. The order was treated as speaking, and the appeal was dismissed.
Provisional attachment under money-laundering law was examined on the quantification of proceeds of crime, tracing of tainted funds, and the sufficiency of reasons to believe. The Tribunal upheld the computation, finding that the attachment order explained the basis of recovery and that the appellant's requested deductions were unsupported or already accounted for in the quantified amount. It also accepted that the statutory reverse burden required the person concerned to explain the source of property after notice under Section 8(1), and rejected the challenge under Section 5(1) because the reasons for attachment were reflected in the order and supporting material. The order was treated as speaking, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
