Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
