Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
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 
