Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the confiscation of accrued interest to the Government of India's account u/s 63. The Adjudicating Authority analyzed evidence and concluded that the Appellant did not own the funds in the Indian bank accounts. The Malaysian Inland Revenue Board's report indicated the Appellant and her husband failed to report income from Singapore, UAE, or remittances to India. The proceedings before the Income Tax authorities were to determine the tax liability of a resident abroad and did not impact the acquisition of funds by a resident in India in the Appellant's name. Statements u/s 40 of FERA revealed cash deposits in the bank. The evidence did not corroborate the Appellant's contention about the source of funds. The funds mobilized in R. Susila's name benefited N. Sasikala. The discharge in the prosecution proceedings is independent from the adjudication proceedings, as held by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Tribunal unable to persuade that the prosecution proceedings should have a binding effect on the present adjudication proceedings.
Contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the confiscation of accrued interest to the Government of India's account u/s 63. The Adjudicating Authority analyzed evidence and concluded that the Appellant did not own the funds in the Indian bank accounts. The Malaysian Inland Revenue Board's report indicated the Appellant and her husband failed to report income from Singapore, UAE, or remittances to India. The proceedings before the Income Tax authorities were to determine the tax liability of a resident abroad and did not impact the acquisition of funds by a resident in India in the Appellant's name. Statements u/s 40 of FERA revealed cash deposits in the bank. The evidence did not corroborate the Appellant's contention about the source of funds. The funds mobilized in R. Susila's name benefited N. Sasikala. The discharge in the prosecution proceedings is independent from the adjudication proceedings, as held by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Tribunal unable to persuade that the prosecution proceedings should have a binding effect on the present adjudication proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
