Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
