Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.