Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
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 
