Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5361 to 5380 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Contravention of the NRNR account regulations attracted penalty against both the authorised dealer and the account holders, because the scheme required the account to be opened only by a non-resident person from funds remitted from outside India, and Section 13(1) of FEMA applied to any person who contravened the Act or regulations. The later omission of Regulation 5(1)(iv) did not extinguish liabilities already incurred, since repeal by omission does not erase prior violations absent contrary intent, so the challenge to the show cause notices failed. Confiscation, however, was set aside because the adjudicating authority and tribunal gave no reasons for ordering it, despite the discretionary nature of Section 13(2) and the repayment of the loan through maturity proceeds.
Contravention of the NRNR account regulations attracted penalty against both the authorised dealer and the account holders, because the scheme required the account to be opened only by a non-resident person from funds remitted from outside India, and Section 13(1) of FEMA applied to any person who contravened the Act or regulations. The later omission of Regulation 5(1)(iv) did not extinguish liabilities already incurred, since repeal by omission does not erase prior violations absent contrary intent, so the challenge to the show cause notices failed. Confiscation, however, was set aside because the adjudicating authority and tribunal gave no reasons for ordering it, despite the discretionary nature of Section 13(2) and the repayment of the loan through maturity proceeds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.