Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5961 to 5980 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.