<?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>2013 (5) TMI 683 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234098</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 was read as conferring complete immunity on protected remittances, because it bars disclosure of the nature and source of the remittance, prohibits inquiry or investigation against the recipient on that ground, and makes receipt evidence inadmissible in proceedings under other laws. The court relied on the statutory text, the CBDT circular, and the legislative object of encouraging foreign exchange remittances to hold that the Assessing Officer could not require the remitter&#039;s identity or treat the receipt as unexplained for tax purposes. The addition was therefore deleted and the Tribunal&#039;s relief maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 10:23:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 683 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234098</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 was read as conferring complete immunity on protected remittances, because it bars disclosure of the nature and source of the remittance, prohibits inquiry or investigation against the recipient on that ground, and makes receipt evidence inadmissible in proceedings under other laws. The court relied on the statutory text, the CBDT circular, and the legislative object of encouraging foreign exchange remittances to hold that the Assessing Officer could not require the remitter&#039;s identity or treat the receipt as unexplained for tax purposes. The addition was therefore deleted and the Tribunal&#039;s relief maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>