<?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>2008 (12) TMI 843 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457420</link>
    <description>Breach of Reserve Bank approval conditions under FERA was treated as a substantive contravention where an overseas representative&#039;s travel and living expenses were paid from the appellants&#039; funds instead of by the subsidiary, and where US dollars were remitted before incorporation for the subsidiary&#039;s benefit. The Tribunal&#039;s reasoning was that the expenses and transfers were directly connected with the foreign subsidiary&#039;s business and were made without the required permission, bringing both Section 9(1)(d) and Section 8(1) into breach. The note also records that penalties were upheld because the violations were not regarded as merely technical.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:51:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 843 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457420</link>
      <description>Breach of Reserve Bank approval conditions under FERA was treated as a substantive contravention where an overseas representative&#039;s travel and living expenses were paid from the appellants&#039; funds instead of by the subsidiary, and where US dollars were remitted before incorporation for the subsidiary&#039;s benefit. The Tribunal&#039;s reasoning was that the expenses and transfers were directly connected with the foreign subsidiary&#039;s business and were made without the required permission, bringing both Section 9(1)(d) and Section 8(1) into breach. The note also records that penalties were upheld because the violations were not regarded as merely technical.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>