Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
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 
