Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.