Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
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 
