https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80957 This case pertains to penalties imposed for alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973. The respondent claimed the appellant transferred 70,000 pounds to purchase a house in the UK, contravening FERA provisions. The appellant retracted his initial statement implicating the transfer, attributing it to a dispute with his sister and brother-in-law. The key points are: the respondent failed to substantiate the transfer of 70,000 pounds; the retraction was prompt; the brother-in-law's statement lacked specificity; no documentary evidence of property transfer existed; the brother-in-law's affidavit claimed ownership of the house; and the appellant's father's statement was hearsay. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal he..... en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:26:29 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:26:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80957 This case pertains to penalties imposed for alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973. The respondent claimed the appellant transferred 70,000 pounds to purchase a house in the UK, contravening FERA provisions. The appellant retracted his initial statement implicating the transfer, attributing it to a dispute with his sister and brother-in-law. The key points are: the respondent failed to substantiate the transfer of 70,000 pounds; the retraction was prompt; the brother-in-law's statement lacked specificity; no documentary evidence of property transfer existed; the brother-in-law's affidavit claimed ownership of the house; and the appellant's father's statement was hearsay. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal he..... Highlights FEMA Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:26:29 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80957