Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to apply where a foreign immovable property continued to be held by a resident in India on the date of seizure, even if acquired before the provision came into force; the challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed and the authorised officer had a prima facie basis to invoke seizure power. However, once the foreign property had been transferred and equivalent foreign exchange had been repatriated into India, the object of Section 37A was satisfied and the seizure of the equivalent asset in India was set aside under the proviso to Section 37A(4), leaving open adjudication for the earlier period of alleged contravention.
Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to apply where a foreign immovable property continued to be held by a resident in India on the date of seizure, even if acquired before the provision came into force; the challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed and the authorised officer had a prima facie basis to invoke seizure power. However, once the foreign property had been transferred and equivalent foreign exchange had been repatriated into India, the object of Section 37A was satisfied and the seizure of the equivalent asset in India was set aside under the proviso to Section 37A(4), leaving open adjudication for the earlier period of alleged contravention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.