Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5361 to 5380 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Funds remitted by a non-resident investor were treated as investment on repatriation basis because no shares were allotted, part of the money was remitted back, and the company's own records and filings supported that characterisation; Regulation 5(1) therefore applied, not the non-repatriation scheme. Once that position was established, failure to intimate RBI, issue shares, or refund within the prescribed period constituted contraventions under FEMA. The managing director was also liable under the person-in-charge provision because the transactions were directly linked to him and he showed no lack of knowledge or due diligence. Penalty followed despite absence of mens rea, cross-examination was properly refused for want of prejudice, and only the quantum of penalty was reduced.
Funds remitted by a non-resident investor were treated as investment on repatriation basis because no shares were allotted, part of the money was remitted back, and the company's own records and filings supported that characterisation; Regulation 5(1) therefore applied, not the non-repatriation scheme. Once that position was established, failure to intimate RBI, issue shares, or refund within the prescribed period constituted contraventions under FEMA. The managing director was also liable under the person-in-charge provision because the transactions were directly linked to him and he showed no lack of knowledge or due diligence. Penalty followed despite absence of mens rea, cross-examination was properly refused for want of prejudice, and only the quantum of penalty was reduced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
