Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
