Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
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.