Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated as a "promoter" or otherwise brought within Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (01.07.2015) to sustain a wilful defaulter classification. The Court held there was no admission or documentary material showing the petitioner was a promoter, and the record (including the company prospectus) did not support such status; the matter had to be assessed on the footing that he was only a non-executive director. It further held that mere non-whole-time directorship did not satisfy Clause 3(d) and the bank failed to substantiate any complicity or the exception clause requirements. Consequently, the Review Committee's decision was set aside against the petitioner, the identification decision became ineffective, and the bank was directed to remove his name from the wilful defaulter list and reverse consequential steps within one month - HC
The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated as a "promoter" or otherwise brought within Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (01.07.2015) to sustain a wilful defaulter classification. The Court held there was no admission or documentary material showing the petitioner was a promoter, and the record (including the company prospectus) did not support such status; the matter had to be assessed on the footing that he was only a non-executive director. It further held that mere non-whole-time directorship did not satisfy Clause 3(d) and the bank failed to substantiate any complicity or the exception clause requirements. Consequently, the Review Committee's decision was set aside against the petitioner, the identification decision became ineffective, and the bank was directed to remove his name from the wilful defaulter list and reverse consequential steps within one month - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
