The Tribunal condoned delay after finding reasonable cause and examined the merits of the case. It held that no capital gains arise where purchase and sale consideration are identical.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify evidence relating to alleged accommodation entries. The matter was remanded for fresh examination and a reasoned decision.
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.
