Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
FERA penalty quantification must be reasoned, reasonable and proportionate to the contravention; the statutory maximum under Section 50 does not by itself justify the amount imposed. Where certain export-realisation contraventions were excluded and an RBI write-off was noted, retaining the original penalty without explaining its basis was disproportionate. A finding that the penalty was not harsh or excessive, without articulated quantification reasons, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore set aside and redetermined at a lower amount, with the appeal partly allowed.
FERA penalty quantification must be reasoned, reasonable and proportionate to the contravention; the statutory maximum under Section 50 does not by itself justify the amount imposed. Where certain export-realisation contraventions were excluded and an RBI write-off was noted, retaining the original penalty without explaining its basis was disproportionate. A finding that the penalty was not harsh or excessive, without articulated quantification reasons, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore set aside and redetermined at a lower amount, with the appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
