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...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
