Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
