The Court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 264 are broad and intended to correct mistakes causing injustice to taxpayers. Authorities must examine the claim on merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
The tribunal clarified that penalties under FEMA arise from breach of statutory obligations and do not require proof of intent. Once a violation is established, liability can be imposed even without showing a guilty mind.
PMLA Tribunal held share investment not proceeds of crime and limited attachment only to mining profits. Productive assets of the company may be released if equivalent security such as bank guarantee or FDR is furnished.
The tribunal observed that the adjudication order merely stated conclusions without explaining the evidence against the accused. Such unsupported findings cannot justify a penalty under foreign exchange laws.
SAFEMA Tribunal held overseas online forex trading violated FEMA despite claims of ignorance, but reduced the penalty from ₹5.20 crore to ₹20 lakh after noting the trader suffered losses of ₹3.25 crore.
PMLA Tribunal upheld freezing of bank accounts and FDR linked to the Manesar land scam, ruling that lien or bank guarantee in favour of a government authority does not prevent attachment under PMLA.
The tribunal clarified that limited education or lack of familiarity with foreign exchange rules cannot justify violations of FEMA. Nevertheless, it reduced the penalty considering the circumstances surrounding the incident.
PMLA Tribunal held ₹50 lakh seized in a CBI trap is proceeds of crime and can be attached under PMLA even if the cash is already in court custody pending the criminal trial.
The tribunal ruled that the amount of penalty under Section 13(1) of FEMA is discretionary and depends on facts and circumstances of each case. As the adjudicating authority had already imposed significant penalties after evaluating the evidence, no grounds existed for enhancement.
PMLA Tribunal upheld attachment of wife’s property linked to fraud proceeds, ruling assets can be attached even if the owner is not accused in the scheduled offence.
