<?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>1978 (10) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283500</link>
    <description>Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed as a broad prohibition on buying, borrowing or otherwise acquiring foreign exchange without Reserve Bank permission. Receipt of foreign exchange from another person, including a gratuitous payment by a relative for travel and incidental expenses abroad, was treated as &quot;otherwise acquiring&quot; because it involves transfer of title, possession and the ability to appropriate the currency. The Foreign Travel Scheme and exchange-control manual did not imply permission for such private receipt abroad, and a hospitality-based characterisation did not remove the transaction from the statutory ban.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:25:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (10) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283500</link>
      <description>Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed as a broad prohibition on buying, borrowing or otherwise acquiring foreign exchange without Reserve Bank permission. Receipt of foreign exchange from another person, including a gratuitous payment by a relative for travel and incidental expenses abroad, was treated as &quot;otherwise acquiring&quot; because it involves transfer of title, possession and the ability to appropriate the currency. The Foreign Travel Scheme and exchange-control manual did not imply permission for such private receipt abroad, and a hospitality-based characterisation did not remove the transaction from the statutory ban.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>