<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (11) TMI 284 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101279</link>
    <description>Payments made in India to captains of foreign vessels during temporary berthing at an Indian port were treated as payments to persons resident outside India, because short physical presence did not make them residents in India for foreign exchange control purposes. The plea that such remittances reflected commercial custom could not override the statutory restriction, and the absence of an express definition in the 1947 Act did not change the result. The text also notes that the penalty fell within the statutory framework. The regulatory prohibition on such payments without permission was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 284 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101279</link>
      <description>Payments made in India to captains of foreign vessels during temporary berthing at an Indian port were treated as payments to persons resident outside India, because short physical presence did not make them residents in India for foreign exchange control purposes. The plea that such remittances reflected commercial custom could not override the statutory restriction, and the absence of an express definition in the 1947 Act did not change the result. The text also notes that the penalty fell within the statutory framework. The regulatory prohibition on such payments without permission was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>