Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Penalty Reduced for Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; Consideration Given to Mitigating Factors.</h1> <h3>Usman Ibrahim Umarjee Versus Director of Enforcement</h3> The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, maintaining the contravention charge under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, but ... - Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.2. Request for adjournment due to religious observance and health reasons.3. Challenge to the imposition of penalty based on lack of wilful default and technical breach.4. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement and decision to dispose of the appeal without hearing the appellant.5. Reference to legal cases supporting the argument that contravention was technical.6. Explanation by the appellant regarding the receipt and use of the amount received.7. Initiation of action based on information from another case of havala payments.8. Consideration of circumstances in determining penalty and criticism of the basis for penalty calculation.9. Plea of absence of mens rea and ignorance of law.10. Assessment of excessive penalty and mitigation of culpability.11. Decision to sustain the contravention charge but reduce the penalty amount.12. Final order reducing the penalty and setting a deadline for payment.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was penalized for receiving a payment from an unknown person on behalf of individuals resident in the United Kingdom, which was deemed a contravention of the Act.2. The appellant requested an adjournment citing religious observance and the ill health of their advocate. However, the Tribunal decided to proceed without the appellant's presence, given the nature of the challenge to the penalty imposition.3. The appellant contested the penalty on grounds of lack of wilful default, conscious involvement, or deliberate defiance of the law, arguing that it was a technical breach. The Tribunal noted the appellant's stance and waived the pre-deposit requirement due to the absence of a dispute regarding the contravention.4. The Tribunal chose to dispose of the appeal without hearing the appellant in person or through an advocate, considering the appellant's detailed submissions challenging the penalty imposition.5. The appellant referenced legal cases to support the argument that the contravention was merely technical, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the charitable use of the received amount.6. The appellant explained that the received amount was for a community welfare project and was used for charitable purposes, attributing the offense to ignorance of the law and committing not to repeat the mistake.7. The action against the appellant stemmed from information related to havala payments, but the Tribunal found the appellant's explanations and actions, such as acknowledging the receipt and depositing the amount in the Society's accounts, significant in assessing the penalty.8. Criticism was directed at the basis for calculating the penalty, which considered the source of the payment rather than the appellant's direct involvement and actions related to the received amount.9. The appellant's pleas of absence of mens rea and ignorance of the law were addressed, with the Tribunal concluding that these factors did not absolve the appellant of the contravention.10. Despite acknowledging mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal found the penalty excessive, leading to a decision to reduce it based on the specific circumstances of the case.11. The Tribunal sustained the contravention charge but reduced the penalty amount significantly, taking into account the appellant's knowledge of the transaction and the benefit derived by the Society.12. The final order partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 10,000 and providing a deadline for payment, failing which the respondents could recover the amount through legal means.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found