Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. The Appellate Tribunal held that the transfer of money from an NRE account, even if received in Indian currency, satisfies the requirements of Section 8(1). The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was deemed acceptable in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially when the witness was unavailable. The Tribunal found that the respondents proved their case through collected documents, rendering cross-examination unnecessary. The appellants' acquittal by the ACMM Court did not impact the Tribunal's decision, as the respondents provided sufficient evidence of the transfer from the NRE account. The Tribunal emphasized that the standards of proof in criminal and adjudication cases differ, and the failure of the prosecution case does not automatically lead to the failure of the adjudication case.
The case involves contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. The Appellate Tribunal held that the transfer of money from an NRE account, even if received in Indian currency, satisfies the requirements of Section 8(1). The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was deemed acceptable in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially when the witness was unavailable. The Tribunal found that the respondents proved their case through collected documents, rendering cross-examination unnecessary. The appellants' acquittal by the ACMM Court did not impact the Tribunal's decision, as the respondents provided sufficient evidence of the transfer from the NRE account. The Tribunal emphasized that the standards of proof in criminal and adjudication cases differ, and the failure of the prosecution case does not automatically lead to the failure of the adjudication case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.