Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1441 to 1460 of 96510 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 4826 
Join Channel 
