Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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.