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 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.