Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.