Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
