Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC held that the agreement for sale executed on 2nd January 1989 is neither illegal nor void under FERA, 1973, as no actual transfer of property or title occurred without RBI permission. Section 47(2) implies that prohibited acts under FERA require prior RBI approval before execution, but this does not invalidate agreements containing such conditions. The agreement did not explicitly require RBI permission under Section 31, and it complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of the agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78, which restrict jurisdiction only in specific cases involving title transfer without permission. Therefore, the civil suit to enforce the agreement is maintainable, and the Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. Questions of enforceability and alternative remedies are reserved for determination on the suit's merits.
The HC held that the agreement for sale executed on 2nd January 1989 is neither illegal nor void under FERA, 1973, as no actual transfer of property or title occurred without RBI permission. Section 47(2) implies that prohibited acts under FERA require prior RBI approval before execution, but this does not invalidate agreements containing such conditions. The agreement did not explicitly require RBI permission under Section 31, and it complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of the agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78, which restrict jurisdiction only in specific cases involving title transfer without permission. Therefore, the civil suit to enforce the agreement is maintainable, and the Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. Questions of enforceability and alternative remedies are reserved for determination on the suit's merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
