Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s Wipro Ltd. and set aside the penalty imposed for contravention of provisions u/s 10(6) of FEMA. The company had remitted foreign exchange to overseas banks for import of goods but failed to submit Bills of Entry for five instances. However, the company provided documents proving import for three out of those five remittances. For the remaining two remittances amounting to USD 38,550, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the company, considering the lapse on the part of the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank in not intimating RBI or maintaining proper records. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement.
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s Wipro Ltd. and set aside the penalty imposed for contravention of provisions u/s 10(6) of FEMA. The company had remitted foreign exchange to overseas banks for import of goods but failed to submit Bills of Entry for five instances. However, the company provided documents proving import for three out of those five remittances. For the remaining two remittances amounting to USD 38,550, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the company, considering the lapse on the part of the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank in not intimating RBI or maintaining proper records. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
