Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The HC dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the Compounding Authority correctly returned the appellants' compounding applications where the Enforcement Directorate had characterized the contraventions under Section 13(1) read with Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 as serious and involving suspected money laundering. Applying the proviso to Rule 8(2), the court held that once the ED expresses that view the Compounding Authority must remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication and need not independently reassess seriousness. The appellants' challenge to the return of applications was rejected and the writ petitions were properly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the Compounding Authority correctly returned the appellants' compounding applications where the Enforcement Directorate had characterized the contraventions under Section 13(1) read with Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 as serious and involving suspected money laundering. Applying the proviso to Rule 8(2), the court held that once the ED expresses that view the Compounding Authority must remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication and need not independently reassess seriousness. The appellants' challenge to the return of applications was rejected and the writ petitions were properly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
