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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
