<?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>2018 (6) TMI 677 - ATFEMA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361850</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld penalties for violating RBI regulations and the delay in filing the FC-GPR report by M/s. True Axiz Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Leonid Beyzer. However, it set aside the confiscation of properties, deeming it excessive, subject to compliance with other laws and pending RBI permissions. The tribunal also found Mr. Beyzer not in contravention of prior approval requirements for investment due to holding only one share in another company. Regarding the acquisition of agricultural land, the tribunal clarified that possessing agricultural land was not prohibited under FDI regulations as long as the appellants did not engage in agricultural activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:03:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 677 - ATFEMA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361850</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld penalties for violating RBI regulations and the delay in filing the FC-GPR report by M/s. True Axiz Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Leonid Beyzer. However, it set aside the confiscation of properties, deeming it excessive, subject to compliance with other laws and pending RBI permissions. The tribunal also found Mr. Beyzer not in contravention of prior approval requirements for investment due to holding only one share in another company. Regarding the acquisition of agricultural land, the tribunal clarified that possessing agricultural land was not prohibited under FDI regulations as long as the appellants did not engage in agricultural activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>