Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to apply where a foreign immovable property continued to be held by a resident in India on the date of seizure, even if acquired before the provision came into force; the challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed and the authorised officer had a prima facie basis to invoke seizure power. However, once the foreign property had been transferred and equivalent foreign exchange had been repatriated into India, the object of Section 37A was satisfied and the seizure of the equivalent asset in India was set aside under the proviso to Section 37A(4), leaving open adjudication for the earlier period of alleged contravention.
Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to apply where a foreign immovable property continued to be held by a resident in India on the date of seizure, even if acquired before the provision came into force; the challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed and the authorised officer had a prima facie basis to invoke seizure power. However, once the foreign property had been transferred and equivalent foreign exchange had been repatriated into India, the object of Section 37A was satisfied and the seizure of the equivalent asset in India was set aside under the proviso to Section 37A(4), leaving open adjudication for the earlier period of alleged contravention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.