<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1348 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243133</link>
    <description>Sale and purchase of foreign exchange between licensed full fledged money changers was analysed under the Memorandum of FLM and sections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Free purchases from other money changers or authorised dealers were permitted if payment was made by cheque, pay order, demand draft, or debit to bank account, and money-changing business had to be conducted through authorised representatives. On the facts stated, the dealings were negotiated and completed through representatives, with no finding that they were unauthorised. Later conduct of the purchaser after completion of the exchange was not attributable to the seller, and the higher sale rate did not itself establish contravention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1348 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243133</link>
      <description>Sale and purchase of foreign exchange between licensed full fledged money changers was analysed under the Memorandum of FLM and sections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Free purchases from other money changers or authorised dealers were permitted if payment was made by cheque, pay order, demand draft, or debit to bank account, and money-changing business had to be conducted through authorised representatives. On the facts stated, the dealings were negotiated and completed through representatives, with no finding that they were unauthorised. Later conduct of the purchaser after completion of the exchange was not attributable to the seller, and the higher sale rate did not itself establish contravention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>