Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
The case involves contravention of FERA provisions u/s 8(1), 48, and 49 r.w.s. 72(c) due to delivering cargo to Dubai instead of Russia, causing foreign exchange loss. Authenticity of incriminating letters confirmed. Suspected collusion between exporter, shipping company, and non-existent Russian buyers. Lack of legal action against shipping company raises suspicion. Appellant's diversion to Dubai contradicted export requirements. Failure to provide export documents strengthens case against appellant. Directors held liable u/s 68 FERA. Penalty upheld for company and director due to culpability in export irregularities.
The case involves contravention of FERA provisions u/s 8(1), 48, and 49 r.w.s. 72(c) due to delivering cargo to Dubai instead of Russia, causing foreign exchange loss. Authenticity of incriminating letters confirmed. Suspected collusion between exporter, shipping company, and non-existent Russian buyers. Lack of legal action against shipping company raises suspicion. Appellant's diversion to Dubai contradicted export requirements. Failure to provide export documents strengthens case against appellant. Directors held liable u/s 68 FERA. Penalty upheld for company and director due to culpability in export irregularities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
