<?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>2010 (9) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113191</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings under FERA for accepting foreign exchange deposits in an NRI account through a person other than the account holder were held unsustainable where the legal position was not clearly settled until a later RBI clarificatory circular and the show-cause notice was issued after the record-preservation period had expired. The Delhi HC noted that the issue had already been covered by an earlier Division Bench decision and that liability could not be fastened on the bank on the basis of an earlier uncertain position. The show-cause notice and consequential adjudication order were therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the bank.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113191</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings under FERA for accepting foreign exchange deposits in an NRI account through a person other than the account holder were held unsustainable where the legal position was not clearly settled until a later RBI clarificatory circular and the show-cause notice was issued after the record-preservation period had expired. The Delhi HC noted that the issue had already been covered by an earlier Division Bench decision and that liability could not be fastened on the bank on the basis of an earlier uncertain position. The show-cause notice and consequential adjudication order were therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the bank.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>