Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
The Tribunal upheld FERA violations involving unauthorized foreign exchange transfers through hawala channels. However, considering delay and circumstances, it reduced the penalty significantly.
The Tribunal upheld contravention but reduced penalties due to lack of justification for maximum fines. It emphasized proportionality in penalty determination. Key takeaway: penalty must be reasoned and proportionate.
The Tribunal upheld attachment, ruling that funds used in a conspiracy can qualify as proceeds of crime. It held that even layered investments linked to illegal activity are attachable under PMLA.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The issue was whether approval under Section 151 granted without reasons is valid. The Tribunal held mechanical approval invalid, rendering the reassessment void and unsustainable.
The issue was whether duty drawback demand can be raised on persons other than the exporter. CESTAT held that only the “person chargeable,” i.e., the exporter, can be targeted under Section 11A.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
