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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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.