Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC ruled that compounding of FEMA offenses cannot be claimed as a right after adjudication is complete. The petitioner initially filed a compounding application but failed to proceed after it was returned for lack of clarity. Instead, the petitioner participated in adjudication proceedings without objection, only seeking compounding after receiving an unfavorable ruling and penalty. The court determined this was an attempt to avoid payment and delay proceedings indefinitely. The HC noted that while compounding is permissible during ongoing adjudication, no provision exists for compounding after adjudication concludes, as this would render the Act's penal provisions ineffective and create an indefinite process. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The HC ruled that compounding of FEMA offenses cannot be claimed as a right after adjudication is complete. The petitioner initially filed a compounding application but failed to proceed after it was returned for lack of clarity. Instead, the petitioner participated in adjudication proceedings without objection, only seeking compounding after receiving an unfavorable ruling and penalty. The court determined this was an attempt to avoid payment and delay proceedings indefinitely. The HC noted that while compounding is permissible during ongoing adjudication, no provision exists for compounding after adjudication concludes, as this would render the Act's penal provisions ineffective and create an indefinite process. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.