Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
