Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
