Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Whether penalty under s.13(1) FEMA for contravention relating to export proceeds/undervaluation should be enhanced up to three times was rejected because the provision prescribes only a maximum ceiling and no minimum or fixed penalty, leaving quantum to the adjudicating authority's judicious discretion based on facts and evidence. The adjudication order contained detailed, reasoned findings evaluating the record, and there is no statutory mandate to impose the maximum penalty merely because it is permissible. Consequently, the request for enhancement failed and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Whether penalty under s.13(1) FEMA for contravention relating to export proceeds/undervaluation should be enhanced up to three times was rejected because the provision prescribes only a maximum ceiling and no minimum or fixed penalty, leaving quantum to the adjudicating authority's judicious discretion based on facts and evidence. The adjudication order contained detailed, reasoned findings evaluating the record, and there is no statutory mandate to impose the maximum penalty merely because it is permissible. Consequently, the request for enhancement failed and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.