https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246148 A corrigendum under FERA could not delete an original finding that charges were unproved, because the rectification power extends only to clerical, arithmetical or accidental mistakes. The Delhi High Court also found no factual basis to fasten liability on the appellant under Section 68, as mere involvement in permissions or branch dealings did not show that he was in charge of and responsible for the business. On the alleged remittances, the Court accepted that the credit and debit notes reflected internal accounting adjustments and that foreign exchange contraventions under Sections 16(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) were not established. The adverse findings and penalties were set aside. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:46:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246148 A corrigendum under FERA could not delete an original finding that charges were unproved, because the rectification power extends only to clerical, arithmetical or accidental mistakes. The Delhi High Court also found no factual basis to fasten liability on the appellant under Section 68, as mere involvement in permissions or branch dealings did not show that he was in charge of and responsible for the business. On the alleged remittances, the Court accepted that the credit and debit notes reflected internal accounting adjustments and that foreign exchange contraventions under Sections 16(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) were not established. The adverse findings and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246148