https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200871 The Court upheld the respondent's jurisdiction to issue summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation to determine involvement in money-laundering activities. The distinction between acquiring illicit funds and projecting them as untainted was noted, requiring detailed factual analysis for a definitive finding. The writ petition challenging the summons was dismissed, highlighting the complexity of legal and factual issues in the case. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:08:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200871 The Court upheld the respondent's jurisdiction to issue summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation to determine involvement in money-laundering activities. The distinction between acquiring illicit funds and projecting them as untainted was noted, requiring detailed factual analysis for a definitive finding. The writ petition challenging the summons was dismissed, highlighting the complexity of legal and factual issues in the case. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200871