Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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.