Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
Abetment under FERA was found where multiple retracted statements, corroborated by documentary bank evidence and witness admissions, showed the appellant provided funds to effect foreign remittances, establishing intention and a meeting of minds with the recipient. The tribunal applied principles on admissibility of retracted confessions and invoked the statutory presumption of culpable mental state, shifting the burden to the appellant who failed to rebut it. Consequently the charge of abetment under Section 64(2) read with Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA was upheld and the administrative penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000.
Abetment under FERA was found where multiple retracted statements, corroborated by documentary bank evidence and witness admissions, showed the appellant provided funds to effect foreign remittances, establishing intention and a meeting of minds with the recipient. The tribunal applied principles on admissibility of retracted confessions and invoked the statutory presumption of culpable mental state, shifting the burden to the appellant who failed to rebut it. Consequently the charge of abetment under Section 64(2) read with Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA was upheld and the administrative penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
