Constitutional personal-liberty safeguards limit PMLA twin bail conditions where completed investigations lead to prolonged incarceration before trial...
Automated airline software subscriptions without human intervention fail technical-services characterisation and do not make available underlying tech...
Business support recruitment and training receipts qualify for presumptive business taxation, not professional taxation under technical consultancy ru...
Treaty exemption for foreign permanent-establishment management fees prevailed, while dividend expense disallowance remained limited to an accepted al...
Centralised assessment transfers: participation after requesting centralisation can bar technical jurisdictional challenges, while assessment disputes...
Binding precedent remains operative despite pending challenge, supporting deletion of interest disallowance when debt is converted into preference sha...
Page of 4912
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 98239 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.