Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires reporting entities to furnish information about transactions referred to in Section 12(1)(a) to the Director, FIU-IND within the prescribed time. The appellant bank failed to report or delayed reporting cash transactions of high value, violating Section 12(1)(b) read with Rules 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 7(2), and 7(4) of the 2005 Rules. The penalty of Rs. 25,70,000/- was imposed for this violation. The Tribunal held that the phrase "each failure" in Section 13 refers to failure or delay in furnishing information for each transaction, attracting penalty. Ignoring contraventions would undermine the Act's sanctity and compliance. The appellant admitted inadvertent error, but penalty was rightly imposed as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Shriram Mutual Fund case. The minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for 167 defaults, while Rs. 50,000/- was imposed for 16 CTRs. The penalty cannot be considered disproportionate given the bank's continuous contravention and delayed reporting only after RBI's notification. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires reporting entities to furnish information about transactions referred to in Section 12(1)(a) to the Director, FIU-IND within the prescribed time. The appellant bank failed to report or delayed reporting cash transactions of high value, violating Section 12(1)(b) read with Rules 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 7(2), and 7(4) of the 2005 Rules. The penalty of Rs. 25,70,000/- was imposed for this violation. The Tribunal held that the phrase "each failure" in Section 13 refers to failure or delay in furnishing information for each transaction, attracting penalty. Ignoring contraventions would undermine the Act's sanctity and compliance. The appellant admitted inadvertent error, but penalty was rightly imposed as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Shriram Mutual Fund case. The minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for 167 defaults, while Rs. 50,000/- was imposed for 16 CTRs. The penalty cannot be considered disproportionate given the bank's continuous contravention and delayed reporting only after RBI's notification. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
