Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
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.