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...
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
