<?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 (7) TMI 505 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235347</link>
    <description>Automatic approval under FERA depended on strict compliance with the declared activity and the conditions in the relevant notification; where the company&#039;s Form FC(RBI) disclosed consultancy activity under NIC Code 893 and did not disclose trading in gold coins, the automatic route did not extend to that trading activity. Section 29(1)(a) continued to restrict foreign nationals and foreign-controlled entities from establishing or carrying on business in India without RBI permission, and a circuitous corporate arrangement could be examined on its substance to test compliance. On the bank issue, the evidence did not establish agency or misuse of permission, so no contravention was made out against the bank.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 505 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235347</link>
      <description>Automatic approval under FERA depended on strict compliance with the declared activity and the conditions in the relevant notification; where the company&#039;s Form FC(RBI) disclosed consultancy activity under NIC Code 893 and did not disclose trading in gold coins, the automatic route did not extend to that trading activity. Section 29(1)(a) continued to restrict foreign nationals and foreign-controlled entities from establishing or carrying on business in India without RBI permission, and a circuitous corporate arrangement could be examined on its substance to test compliance. On the bank issue, the evidence did not establish agency or misuse of permission, so no contravention was made out against the bank.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>