<?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>2010 (6) TMI 878 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518</link>
    <description>The court upheld penalties imposed under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the FERA Act, dismissing the appeal challenging the legality of the show cause notice and the basis for the penalty. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding their role as an employee of an authorized dealer and the applicability of section 6(4) for non-issuance of encashment certificates were rejected, affirming the penalties for unauthorized dealing in foreign exchange.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:18:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 878 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518</link>
      <description>The court upheld penalties imposed under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the FERA Act, dismissing the appeal challenging the legality of the show cause notice and the basis for the penalty. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding their role as an employee of an authorized dealer and the applicability of section 6(4) for non-issuance of encashment certificates were rejected, affirming the penalties for unauthorized dealing in foreign exchange.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>