Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
