Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The AT affirms the provisional attachment order and dismisses the appeals, holding that the co-lending/service agreements between the NBFC and fintech entities effectively outsourced core management functions, facilitated misuse of borrower data and constituted prima facie commission of offences under sections 417, 419, 420 IPC and sections 66-C, 66-D IT Act. The tribunal finds the fintech entities, by providing funds as a purported "performance guarantee" and receiving guaranteed revenue or service fees, assumed substantive loan-related functions without due diligence, while the NBFC obtained assured returns without capital exposure. The appellants' contention of limited fintech involvement is rejected as the agreements demonstrate delegation of non-permissible core activities.
The AT affirms the provisional attachment order and dismisses the appeals, holding that the co-lending/service agreements between the NBFC and fintech entities effectively outsourced core management functions, facilitated misuse of borrower data and constituted prima facie commission of offences under sections 417, 419, 420 IPC and sections 66-C, 66-D IT Act. The tribunal finds the fintech entities, by providing funds as a purported "performance guarantee" and receiving guaranteed revenue or service fees, assumed substantive loan-related functions without due diligence, while the NBFC obtained assured returns without capital exposure. The appellants' contention of limited fintech involvement is rejected as the agreements demonstrate delegation of non-permissible core activities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
