<?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 (8) TMI 1202 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187257</link>
    <description>A revisional challenge is not maintainable when filed without valid authorization and after an unreasonable delay, because supervisory powers must be exercised by a duly authorised person within a reasonable period. The Department&#039;s revision therefore failed. On the substantive issue, the alleged violation based on investment in shares of an NRI company was unsustainable because the company&#039;s memorandum and record showed manufacturing and related activities, not oil exploration itself, and the earlier adjudicating order had already found no requirement of prior governmental permission on those facts. The appellate challenge succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:24:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1202 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187257</link>
      <description>A revisional challenge is not maintainable when filed without valid authorization and after an unreasonable delay, because supervisory powers must be exercised by a duly authorised person within a reasonable period. The Department&#039;s revision therefore failed. On the substantive issue, the alleged violation based on investment in shares of an NRI company was unsustainable because the company&#039;s memorandum and record showed manufacturing and related activities, not oil exploration itself, and the earlier adjudicating order had already found no requirement of prior governmental permission on those facts. The appellate challenge succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>