https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307900 The petition was treated as covered by an earlier Delhi HC order of 16 January 2023, and the Court directed respondents' counsel to examine that order and obtain instructions before further consideration. It also observed that the SBI account at Sansad Marg, New Delhi could not have been opened on 31 March 2020 because the relevant amendment to the Act came only in September 2020. On the issue of delay in opening the bank account between July and October 2020, the Court indicated that penalty would be payable by the petitioner. The matter was therefore listed again for further consideration. en-us Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 May 2023 08:34:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307900 The petition was treated as covered by an earlier Delhi HC order of 16 January 2023, and the Court directed respondents' counsel to examine that order and obtain instructions before further consideration. It also observed that the SBI account at Sansad Marg, New Delhi could not have been opened on 31 March 2020 because the relevant amendment to the Act came only in September 2020. On the issue of delay in opening the bank account between July and October 2020, the Court indicated that penalty would be payable by the petitioner. The matter was therefore listed again for further consideration. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307900