Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
