Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
