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...
Appellant was found guilty of contravening Sections 8(3) read with 8(4) and Sections 8(3) read with 8(4) read with Section 64 of FERA for over-invoicing imported books and unauthorised foreign exchange remittances through proprietorship firms. Although not the mastermind, Appellant had knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and allowed the main accused to use proprietorship names for imports. Based on recorded statements and available records, Appellate Tribunal established Appellant's involvement in the contravention. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2 Lakhs, which was already pre-deposited. The blocked amount of Rs. 60,859.52 in Appellant's firm's account was directed to be released along with interest.
Appellant was found guilty of contravening Sections 8(3) read with 8(4) and Sections 8(3) read with 8(4) read with Section 64 of FERA for over-invoicing imported books and unauthorised foreign exchange remittances through proprietorship firms. Although not the mastermind, Appellant had knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and allowed the main accused to use proprietorship names for imports. Based on recorded statements and available records, Appellate Tribunal established Appellant's involvement in the contravention. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2 Lakhs, which was already pre-deposited. The blocked amount of Rs. 60,859.52 in Appellant's firm's account was directed to be released along with interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
