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...
Section 37A could be invoked on a continuing contravention that extended beyond its insertion, and the appeal was maintainable by the Union of India as an aggrieved person through an authorised officer. The Tribunal held that false answers in ODI filings could not be excused by later form changes, and that protective seizure under Section 37A was wrongly set aside on that basis. It also found the Competent Authority's acceptance of step-down subsidiary reporting compliance and bona fide use of ODI funds to be perverse for want of supporting material. Alleged denial of natural justice was rejected because the respondent had received summons, filed replies, and obtained further time. The impugned order was set aside and the seizure restored.
Section 37A could be invoked on a continuing contravention that extended beyond its insertion, and the appeal was maintainable by the Union of India as an aggrieved person through an authorised officer. The Tribunal held that false answers in ODI filings could not be excused by later form changes, and that protective seizure under Section 37A was wrongly set aside on that basis. It also found the Competent Authority's acceptance of step-down subsidiary reporting compliance and bona fide use of ODI funds to be perverse for want of supporting material. Alleged denial of natural justice was rejected because the respondent had received summons, filed replies, and obtained further time. The impugned order was set aside and the seizure restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.