Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant contravened Section 3(a) of FEMA in relation to unauthorised foreign exchange dealing, relying on corroborative statements, recovery of US $ 10,000 from the appellant's personal custody, and the absence of a credible explanation for possession of the currency. The plea based on educational background was rejected because the persons involved had prior money-changing experience and were expected to know the legal requirements. Liability for penalty was therefore sustained, but the Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty in view of the facts and circumstances and directed adjustment of the pre-deposit against the reduced amount.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant contravened Section 3(a) of FEMA in relation to unauthorised foreign exchange dealing, relying on corroborative statements, recovery of US $ 10,000 from the appellant's personal custody, and the absence of a credible explanation for possession of the currency. The plea based on educational background was rejected because the persons involved had prior money-changing experience and were expected to know the legal requirements. Liability for penalty was therefore sustained, but the Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty in view of the facts and circumstances and directed adjustment of the pre-deposit against the reduced amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.