Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The AT found the appellant's bank contravened FEMA provisions by allowing outward remittance without RBI approval, specifically violating Sections 6(3)(b), 10(5), and 47(3). The DCF valuation method revealed irregular share pricing and improper transaction documentation. While other noticees faced penalties ranging from Rs. 4-85 crores, the AT determined the initial Rs. 14 crores penalty against the appellant bank was disproportionate. Consequently, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 1.4 crores, noting the bank's limited direct culpability while acknowledging procedural irregularities in the remittance process. The appeal was partially allowed with the penalty modification.
The AT found the appellant's bank contravened FEMA provisions by allowing outward remittance without RBI approval, specifically violating Sections 6(3)(b), 10(5), and 47(3). The DCF valuation method revealed irregular share pricing and improper transaction documentation. While other noticees faced penalties ranging from Rs. 4-85 crores, the AT determined the initial Rs. 14 crores penalty against the appellant bank was disproportionate. Consequently, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 1.4 crores, noting the bank's limited direct culpability while acknowledging procedural irregularities in the remittance process. The appeal was partially allowed with the penalty modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
