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...
Section 42 of FEMA creates derivative liability for partners, directors and persons in charge only where contravention by the company or firm is first established. As the earlier appellate order had already set aside the penalty and confiscation against the firm and that exoneration had attained finality, the Tribunal held that the appellant's penalty under Section 42 read with Section 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) could not survive. The appellant's alleged acts were also treated as independent of the firm's business, reinforcing that consequential liability could not be fastened on him. The penalties were quashed and the seized amount and pre-deposit were ordered to be released.
Section 42 of FEMA creates derivative liability for partners, directors and persons in charge only where contravention by the company or firm is first established. As the earlier appellate order had already set aside the penalty and confiscation against the firm and that exoneration had attained finality, the Tribunal held that the appellant's penalty under Section 42 read with Section 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) could not survive. The appellant's alleged acts were also treated as independent of the firm's business, reinforcing that consequential liability could not be fastened on him. The penalties were quashed and the seized amount and pre-deposit were ordered to be released.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.