https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385393 A transfer made to meet another company's working expenses was treated as a commercial advance, not a loan or deposit, because the accounts, explanatory note and correspondence showed it was given to carry on business in trust and on behalf of that company and lacked an absolute promise to repay. On that basis, no contravention under Section 26(7) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established. Penalties on the company and its directors also could not stand: with the foundational breach unproved, and without specific facts showing the directors were in charge of and responsible for the business, vicarious liability was not made out. The penalty order was set aside. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:36:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385393 A transfer made to meet another company's working expenses was treated as a commercial advance, not a loan or deposit, because the accounts, explanatory note and correspondence showed it was given to carry on business in trust and on behalf of that company and lacked an absolute promise to repay. On that basis, no contravention under Section 26(7) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established. Penalties on the company and its directors also could not stand: with the foundational breach unproved, and without specific facts showing the directors were in charge of and responsible for the business, vicarious liability was not made out. The penalty order was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385393