Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
FEMA offences - Liability of person-in-charge of company - Investment in forex trading bitcoins traded in USD - Indian currency seized worth Rs. 1,97,03,000/- confiscated to Central Government account u/s 13(2) of FEMA, 1999. Enforcement Directorate's (ED) contention for remanding case to initiate fresh proceedings against respondents along with M/s Ambidant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. rejected due to: (1) No notice issued to Ambidant, revision petition not maintainable; (2) Ambidant not impleaded as party; (3) Ambidant incorporated in Dubai, beyond territorial jurisdiction; (4) Seized currency already confiscated; (5) Penalty not recovered, respondents untraceable; (6) Ambidant's operational status unknown; (7) Revisions without penalty realization attempt to favor noticees; (8) Revision filed after 10 months, time-barred. Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld.
FEMA offences - Liability of person-in-charge of company - Investment in forex trading bitcoins traded in USD - Indian currency seized worth Rs. 1,97,03,000/- confiscated to Central Government account u/s 13(2) of FEMA, 1999. Enforcement Directorate's (ED) contention for remanding case to initiate fresh proceedings against respondents along with M/s Ambidant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. rejected due to: (1) No notice issued to Ambidant, revision petition not maintainable; (2) Ambidant not impleaded as party; (3) Ambidant incorporated in Dubai, beyond territorial jurisdiction; (4) Seized currency already confiscated; (5) Penalty not recovered, respondents untraceable; (6) Ambidant's operational status unknown; (7) Revisions without penalty realization attempt to favor noticees; (8) Revision filed after 10 months, time-barred. Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.