The amendment clarifies that identity and address verification rests with the entity that last updated CKYCR records. Regional rural banks relying on such records are spared repeat checks but remain fully responsible for ongoing due diligence and AML compliance.
The regulator held that identity and address verification rests with the last entity uploading KYC data to CKYCR. Rural banks relying on valid records need not repeat verification, though full CDD responsibility otherwise continues.
The tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10BB is only a procedural lapse and not a substantive bar to exemption. Where the audit report was available before processing, denial of section 11 exemption was unsustainable.
The amendment clarifies that identity and address verification rests with the entity that last updated CKYCR records. Small finance banks relying on such records are spared repeat checks but must continue full customer due diligence under KYC norms.
The amendment clearly assigns identity and address verification to the entity that last updated customer records in CKYCR. Banks relying on such records are relieved from repeat checks but must continue full customer due diligence under KYC norms.
Karnataka High Court held that customs duty under the exemption Notification No.1/95-CE dated 04.01.1995 on imported items not granted since condition of value addition at the minimum rate of 33% made before the exports not satisfied. In fact, the value addition was only upto 5.18%.
The tribunal held that land registered in an individual’s name but fully paid by a society amounts to receipt of property without consideration. Such benefit is taxable as income under section 56(2)(vii).
The regulator held that the bank last uploading or updating KYC data in CKYCR is responsible for identity and address verification. Other banks may rely on such records without re-verification, streamlining compliance while retaining broader CDD accountability.
NCLT Mumbai held that since existence of financial debt and default thereon is established, application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process [CIRP] against Proto D Industries Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] is admitted.
The tribunal ruled that rejecting books and estimating profits bars further item-wise disallowances. Authorities cannot “blow hot and cold” by disallowing expenses from the same rejected records.
