Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
