Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
