https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367196 A temporary caretaker or leave-and-licence arrangement for immovable property, coupled with an interest-free security deposit received in India from an Indian branch office and without any remittance outside India, did not by itself establish contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) or 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The record did not show the requisite nexus for treating the receipt or payment as prohibited, and the transaction was treated as falling within the limited caretaker arrangement contemplated by the proviso to Section 31(1). On those facts, RBI permission was not required on the respondent's case. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 07:40:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367196 A temporary caretaker or leave-and-licence arrangement for immovable property, coupled with an interest-free security deposit received in India from an Indian branch office and without any remittance outside India, did not by itself establish contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) or 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The record did not show the requisite nexus for treating the receipt or payment as prohibited, and the transaction was treated as falling within the limited caretaker arrangement contemplated by the proviso to Section 31(1). On those facts, RBI permission was not required on the respondent's case. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367196