<?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 (6) TMI 647 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457533</link>
    <description>Receipt of money through an NRE account was not shown to be a genuine gift because the recipient produced no credible material explaining the circumstances of the alleged gift from a person resident outside India. The facts were within the recipient&#039;s special knowledge, so the burden to explain them lay on that person; in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, an adverse inference was justified and contravention of foreign exchange law was established. Denial of inspection and cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication because inspection had been offered, relied-upon documents were supplied, no timely request for cross-examination was made, and no prejudice was shown. The penalty order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 647 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457533</link>
      <description>Receipt of money through an NRE account was not shown to be a genuine gift because the recipient produced no credible material explaining the circumstances of the alleged gift from a person resident outside India. The facts were within the recipient&#039;s special knowledge, so the burden to explain them lay on that person; in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, an adverse inference was justified and contravention of foreign exchange law was established. Denial of inspection and cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication because inspection had been offered, relied-upon documents were supplied, no timely request for cross-examination was made, and no prejudice was shown. The penalty order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>