Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 95833 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 had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.