<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1297 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457389</link>
    <description>Documentary entries in audited accounts, supported by seized material and admissions, were treated as sufficient evidence of contravention where no Reserve Bank permission or prior intimation was shown. A foreign company&#039;s credit balance recorded in sundry creditors was not displaced by a unilateral write-off, so the entry was attributed to a sum placed to the credit of a person resident outside India. The material also established instructions for remittances and foreign exchange transfers abroad, including payments for personal benefit, and the agency explanation was rejected as unsupported. The penalty was therefore sustained and the foreign exchange contraventions were affirmed on the recorded material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:50:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1297 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457389</link>
      <description>Documentary entries in audited accounts, supported by seized material and admissions, were treated as sufficient evidence of contravention where no Reserve Bank permission or prior intimation was shown. A foreign company&#039;s credit balance recorded in sundry creditors was not displaced by a unilateral write-off, so the entry was attributed to a sum placed to the credit of a person resident outside India. The material also established instructions for remittances and foreign exchange transfers abroad, including payments for personal benefit, and the agency explanation was rejected as unsupported. The penalty was therefore sustained and the foreign exchange contraventions were affirmed on the recorded material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>