<?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 (6) TMI 1030 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457400</link>
    <description>Restrictions on payments under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were applied to transactions in India involving a non-resident, where credited amounts were paid by order of, or on behalf of, the non-resident entity and then distributed in India. Non-compliance with the conditions attached to Reserve Bank permission was treated as contravention under Section 49. The banker&#039;s role in opening and operating the account and crediting the amounts was found to be intentional aid, satisfying abetment in the statutory sense. The Tribunal therefore held that contravention and abetment were established and upheld the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:13:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 1030 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457400</link>
      <description>Restrictions on payments under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were applied to transactions in India involving a non-resident, where credited amounts were paid by order of, or on behalf of, the non-resident entity and then distributed in India. Non-compliance with the conditions attached to Reserve Bank permission was treated as contravention under Section 49. The banker&#039;s role in opening and operating the account and crediting the amounts was found to be intentional aid, satisfying abetment in the statutory sense. The Tribunal therefore held that contravention and abetment were established and upheld the penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>