<?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 (7) TMI 1120 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457500</link>
    <description>A person who stayed mostly in Malaysia for business and visited India only occasionally was treated as a person resident outside India under the statutory definition. On that basis, account entries in his name, drafts received from Malaysia, and management of affairs through a power of attorney supported the finding that the payments, credits and related transactions were made by, on behalf of, or to the credit of a person resident outside India. In relation to the loan transaction, the appellants failed to prove that the advance was made personally to A. Abdul Khader rather than to the proprietorship concern, and an adverse inference was drawn from facts within their special knowledge. Contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1120 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457500</link>
      <description>A person who stayed mostly in Malaysia for business and visited India only occasionally was treated as a person resident outside India under the statutory definition. On that basis, account entries in his name, drafts received from Malaysia, and management of affairs through a power of attorney supported the finding that the payments, credits and related transactions were made by, on behalf of, or to the credit of a person resident outside India. In relation to the loan transaction, the appellants failed to prove that the advance was made personally to A. Abdul Khader rather than to the proprietorship concern, and an adverse inference was drawn from facts within their special knowledge. Contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>