Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.