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...
The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission. The company abetted in contravention of u/s 8(1) of FERA 1973. The Tribunal noted the company's actions facilitated the conversion of rupee accounts, disregarding statutory obligations. The Tribunal applied the presumption of culpable mental state u/s 59 of FERA 1973, shifting the burden to the Appellants, which they failed to rebut. The Tribunal upheld penalties for contraventions u/s 9(1)(a) and u/s 9(1)(c) against the Appellant Company and individual Appellants. Penalties for contraventions u/s 8(1) were set aside. Total penalties imposed were Rs. 32,00,000 on the Company and Rs. 8,00,000 on each individual Appellant, with adjustments for pre-deposits.
The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission. The company abetted in contravention of u/s 8(1) of FERA 1973. The Tribunal noted the company's actions facilitated the conversion of rupee accounts, disregarding statutory obligations. The Tribunal applied the presumption of culpable mental state u/s 59 of FERA 1973, shifting the burden to the Appellants, which they failed to rebut. The Tribunal upheld penalties for contraventions u/s 9(1)(a) and u/s 9(1)(c) against the Appellant Company and individual Appellants. Penalties for contraventions u/s 8(1) were set aside. Total penalties imposed were Rs. 32,00,000 on the Company and Rs. 8,00,000 on each individual Appellant, with adjustments for pre-deposits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.