<?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>2009 (12) TMI 519 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113580</link>
    <description>For deposits into NRE accounts made before 31-7-1995, the pre-amendment exchange-control materials did not clearly require the foreign currency proceeds to be tendered in person by the NRI account holder, so deposits through a power of attorney holder were not shown to be prohibited. The later circular and amended paragraph introduced an express in-person requirement and were treated as a substantive change operating prospectively, not as a mere clarification. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief on the facts, given the long pendency and existing interim orders. The writ petitions were allowed and the notices and consequential adjudication orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 519 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113580</link>
      <description>For deposits into NRE accounts made before 31-7-1995, the pre-amendment exchange-control materials did not clearly require the foreign currency proceeds to be tendered in person by the NRI account holder, so deposits through a power of attorney holder were not shown to be prohibited. The later circular and amended paragraph introduced an express in-person requirement and were treated as a substantive change operating prospectively, not as a mere clarification. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief on the facts, given the long pendency and existing interim orders. The writ petitions were allowed and the notices and consequential adjudication orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>