https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275847 Contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not proved because the evidence showed only that the appellant received money on the instructions of a person resident in India. The prosecution failed to identify any person resident outside India on whose instructions or on whose behalf the payment was received, and the alleged Singapore slip did not establish such a nexus. As the essential statutory ingredient was missing, the finding of contravention could not stand and the confiscation and penalty orders were set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:20:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275847 Contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not proved because the evidence showed only that the appellant received money on the instructions of a person resident in India. The prosecution failed to identify any person resident outside India on whose instructions or on whose behalf the payment was received, and the alleged Singapore slip did not establish such a nexus. As the essential statutory ingredient was missing, the finding of contravention could not stand and the confiscation and penalty orders were set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 17 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275847