TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to criminal proceedings under FERA Section 56 for failing to realize export proceeds worth Rs. 84.46 crores involving 119 GRs. The petitioner, a trading house proprietor, claimed immunity from prosecution based on a Settlement Commission order under the Customs Act. The HC held that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction extends only to customs duty matters and cannot grant immunity for FERA violations. The court found that FERA/FEMA violations were not adjudicated by the Settlement Commission, and any purported immunity for FERA offenses would be void ab initio. The petitioner failed to invoke Section 60 FERA's immunity mechanism. The HC upheld the ACMM's dismissal of the discharge application, confirming that prosecution under FERA Section 56 for export realization violations remains valid despite the customs settlement.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to criminal proceedings under FERA Section 56 for failing to realize export proceeds worth Rs. 84.46 crores involving 119 GRs. The petitioner, a trading house proprietor, claimed immunity from prosecution based on a Settlement Commission order under the Customs Act. The HC held that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction extends only to customs duty matters and cannot grant immunity for FERA violations. The court found that FERA/FEMA violations were not adjudicated by the Settlement Commission, and any purported immunity for FERA offenses would be void ab initio. The petitioner failed to invoke Section 60 FERA's immunity mechanism. The HC upheld the ACMM's dismissal of the discharge application, confirming that prosecution under FERA Section 56 for export realization violations remains valid despite the customs settlement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
