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 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 4828 
Join Channel 
