Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Delay in issuing the show cause notice did not defeat the FEMA contravention claim because the company had been alerted early and still failed to produce exchange control copies, bills of entry, or any other proof that goods were imported against the remittances. The Tribunal therefore sustained the finding of contravention of Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1), distinguishing authorities relied on by the appellants on their facts. It also upheld separate liability of the Managing Director under Section 42, since he was responsible for the company's business and showed no due diligence to prevent the breach. The penalties on both appellants were, however, reduced as excessive.
Delay in issuing the show cause notice did not defeat the FEMA contravention claim because the company had been alerted early and still failed to produce exchange control copies, bills of entry, or any other proof that goods were imported against the remittances. The Tribunal therefore sustained the finding of contravention of Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1), distinguishing authorities relied on by the appellants on their facts. It also upheld separate liability of the Managing Director under Section 42, since he was responsible for the company's business and showed no due diligence to prevent the breach. The penalties on both appellants were, however, reduced as excessive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
