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.
The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 9A is not required when a charitable trust sets off earlier years’ excess application against current year income. The set-off is allowable as application of income under Section 11.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Vigneshwara Transport Company (Karnataka High Court) SCN u/s 74 GST Valid even if based on Material from allegedly Illegal Search or from another Commissionerate-Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act are independent adjudicatory proceedings & are not dependent on validity of […]
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
