Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
FDI received as equity or preferential capital was treated as investment in securities, not borrowing in rupees, so the borrowing-and-lending regulations did not apply to the alleged use of funds. Adverse findings on downstream investment and the TISPRO regime were also unsustainable where the show cause notices did not set out the necessary factual basis and the alleged recipient was a society, not another Indian company. FDI-in-trust restrictions were inapplicable on the record, and Section 6(3)(e) did not cover the transactions. Once the company-level contravention failed, the vicarious penalty on the managing director under FEMA also fell away.
FDI received as equity or preferential capital was treated as investment in securities, not borrowing in rupees, so the borrowing-and-lending regulations did not apply to the alleged use of funds. Adverse findings on downstream investment and the TISPRO regime were also unsustainable where the show cause notices did not set out the necessary factual basis and the alleged recipient was a society, not another Indian company. FDI-in-trust restrictions were inapplicable on the record, and Section 6(3)(e) did not cover the transactions. Once the company-level contravention failed, the vicarious penalty on the managing director under FEMA also fell away.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
