Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
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.