Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) for instructing Indian Banks to credit accounts of non-residents, leading to prohibited transactions. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to provide an unconditional bank guarantee for the penalty amount u/s 52(2) of FERA. The Appellant's denial of responsibility despite initiating the transactions showed intentional engagement in prohibited activities. FERA aimed to regulate foreign exchange transactions for economic development. The burden of proof regarding culpable mental state was on the Appellant, which it failed to discharge, establishing abetment under FERA sections. The Tribunal deemed the penalty amount disproportionate to the offense and adjusted it for justice.
The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) for instructing Indian Banks to credit accounts of non-residents, leading to prohibited transactions. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to provide an unconditional bank guarantee for the penalty amount u/s 52(2) of FERA. The Appellant's denial of responsibility despite initiating the transactions showed intentional engagement in prohibited activities. FERA aimed to regulate foreign exchange transactions for economic development. The burden of proof regarding culpable mental state was on the Appellant, which it failed to discharge, establishing abetment under FERA sections. The Tribunal deemed the penalty amount disproportionate to the offense and adjusted it for justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
