<?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 (8) TMI 1034 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457471</link>
    <description>Residency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was assessed on the statutory definition and surrounding circumstances, and a person who returned to India and continued to stay there without showing an intention to remain outside India for an uncertain period was treated as resident in India. Service of show cause notices was upheld where they were sent to the address furnished by the appellant, and affixation was recognised as a valid mode; mere personal non-receipt did not establish breach of natural justice. Retracted statements could still be relied on for penalty proceedings where voluntariness was not disproved and the material supported their truth, with proof governed by preponderance of probability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 12:47:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1034 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457471</link>
      <description>Residency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was assessed on the statutory definition and surrounding circumstances, and a person who returned to India and continued to stay there without showing an intention to remain outside India for an uncertain period was treated as resident in India. Service of show cause notices was upheld where they were sent to the address furnished by the appellant, and affixation was recognised as a valid mode; mere personal non-receipt did not establish breach of natural justice. Retracted statements could still be relied on for penalty proceedings where voluntariness was not disproved and the material supported their truth, with proof governed by preponderance of probability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>