<?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>2024 (9) TMI 69 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757825</link>
    <description>A penalty for alleged contravention of foreign exchange law cannot be sustained on a promptly retracted custody statement unless the allegation is independently corroborated by reliable evidence. The record did not reliably prove transfer of foreign exchange to the United Kingdom or purchase of overseas property, as the brother-in-law&#039;s account lacked specificity, there were no supporting bank records or documentary proof, and the alleged power of attorney and the father&#039;s statement were insufficient. The seized Indian currency by itself did not establish the foreign exchange violation. The contravention was therefore not proved and the impugned penalty order was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:26:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 69 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757825</link>
      <description>A penalty for alleged contravention of foreign exchange law cannot be sustained on a promptly retracted custody statement unless the allegation is independently corroborated by reliable evidence. The record did not reliably prove transfer of foreign exchange to the United Kingdom or purchase of overseas property, as the brother-in-law&#039;s account lacked specificity, there were no supporting bank records or documentary proof, and the alleged power of attorney and the father&#039;s statement were insufficient. The seized Indian currency by itself did not establish the foreign exchange violation. The contravention was therefore not proved and the impugned penalty order was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>