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...
The appellate tribunal examined the penalty imposed on the company and individual for contravention of Section 6(3)(a) of FEMA and Regulations 5, 6, and 13 of the Regulations, 2000. The company had obtained RBI clearance but omitted particulars of step-down wholly-owned subsidiaries, which was found unintentional. RBI later approved closure of the subsidiary and repatriation. Considering the initial RBI permission, the penalty amount was found disproportionate. The penalty on the company was reduced from Rs. 70 lakhs to Rs. 35 lakhs, and on the individual from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs, considering the amount involved and reason for contravention. The reduction was based on peculiar facts and circumstances, not on proportionality grounds. The appellant did not press legal issues framed by the Bombay High Court, agreeing to adjudication only on the penalty amount.
The appellate tribunal examined the penalty imposed on the company and individual for contravention of Section 6(3)(a) of FEMA and Regulations 5, 6, and 13 of the Regulations, 2000. The company had obtained RBI clearance but omitted particulars of step-down wholly-owned subsidiaries, which was found unintentional. RBI later approved closure of the subsidiary and repatriation. Considering the initial RBI permission, the penalty amount was found disproportionate. The penalty on the company was reduced from Rs. 70 lakhs to Rs. 35 lakhs, and on the individual from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs, considering the amount involved and reason for contravention. The reduction was based on peculiar facts and circumstances, not on proportionality grounds. The appellant did not press legal issues framed by the Bombay High Court, agreeing to adjudication only on the penalty amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
