<?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>1982 (2) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309823</link>
    <description>A later categorical admission that sums were received through persons in India on instructions from a relative abroad was treated as sufficient to establish foreign exchange contravention, because the receipts were not shown to be through an authorised foreign exchange channel. Liability under the repealed 1947 Act was preserved for a September 1973 receipt, as the saving effect of the General Clauses Act and the 1973 Act kept offences committed under the old law enforceable. For receipts in February and May 1974, the statutory Explanation to Section 9(1)(b) did not assist because the receipts were not proved to be by order or on behalf of an authorised dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 15:39:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (2) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309823</link>
      <description>A later categorical admission that sums were received through persons in India on instructions from a relative abroad was treated as sufficient to establish foreign exchange contravention, because the receipts were not shown to be through an authorised foreign exchange channel. Liability under the repealed 1947 Act was preserved for a September 1973 receipt, as the saving effect of the General Clauses Act and the 1973 Act kept offences committed under the old law enforceable. For receipts in February and May 1974, the statutory Explanation to Section 9(1)(b) did not assist because the receipts were not proved to be by order or on behalf of an authorised dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>