Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The AT dismissed the appeal filed under Section 19(1) of FEMA seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed for contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA relating to failure to realize export proceeds. It was held that Section 13(1) of FEMA caps the penalty at three times the contravened amount but does not prescribe a minimum or fixed sum, leaving the quantum of penalty to the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, to be exercised judiciously based on facts and evidence. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the contravened amount, which the AT found reasonable and objective. The AT criticized the appellant ED for pursuing enhancement appeals despite the respondents being untraceable, thereby diminishing recovery prospects. Consequently, the penalty order was upheld, and the appeal for enhancement was dismissed for lack of merit.
The AT dismissed the appeal filed under Section 19(1) of FEMA seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed for contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA relating to failure to realize export proceeds. It was held that Section 13(1) of FEMA caps the penalty at three times the contravened amount but does not prescribe a minimum or fixed sum, leaving the quantum of penalty to the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, to be exercised judiciously based on facts and evidence. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the contravened amount, which the AT found reasonable and objective. The AT criticized the appellant ED for pursuing enhancement appeals despite the respondents being untraceable, thereby diminishing recovery prospects. Consequently, the penalty order was upheld, and the appeal for enhancement was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
