Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Procedural challenge based on delay, Rule 4 non-compliance and denial of cross-examination failed because the Tribunal found a prior investigation, notice through summons, supply of relied-upon documents, replies, hearing and recorded satisfaction to proceed, with no prejudice shown. An authorised person under FEMA was held amenable to penalty because the statutory definition of "person" is broad and Chapter III does not grant immunity from Section 13 action. The company's issuance of forex prepaid cards without verifying actual travellers, passports or KYC particulars, and acceptance of funds from third parties, supported the findings of contraventions. Personal liability of the company officer was rejected because he was not in charge during the relevant period and could not be treated as a de facto declarant.
Procedural challenge based on delay, Rule 4 non-compliance and denial of cross-examination failed because the Tribunal found a prior investigation, notice through summons, supply of relied-upon documents, replies, hearing and recorded satisfaction to proceed, with no prejudice shown. An authorised person under FEMA was held amenable to penalty because the statutory definition of "person" is broad and Chapter III does not grant immunity from Section 13 action. The company's issuance of forex prepaid cards without verifying actual travellers, passports or KYC particulars, and acceptance of funds from third parties, supported the findings of contraventions. Personal liability of the company officer was rejected because he was not in charge during the relevant period and could not be treated as a de facto declarant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.