<?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>1979 (10) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314488</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the State&#039;s appeal, affirming the Appellate Board&#039;s decision to quash the penalty on the respondent Mills. The Court ruled that the payment was a deposit, not a payment to the foreign entity, contingent on RBI approval. No debt was acknowledged, and any recovered penalty must be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (10) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314488</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the State&#039;s appeal, affirming the Appellate Board&#039;s decision to quash the penalty on the respondent Mills. The Court ruled that the payment was a deposit, not a payment to the foreign entity, contingent on RBI approval. No debt was acknowledged, and any recovered penalty must be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>