https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457564 A revision under FERA was held maintainable because section 52(4) prescribed no limitation period, and a filing within 100 days was not treated as unreasonable in the circumstances. On merits, a confession before Enforcement Directorate officers was treated as admissible, since such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a bare retraction without particulars of coercion or duress did not displace its evidentiary value. The surrounding circumstances, including the cheque transaction involving a non-resident account and the corresponding payment, were sufficient to establish contravention of section 9(1)(a), and the exoneration was reversed with penalty. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:23:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457564 A revision under FERA was held maintainable because section 52(4) prescribed no limitation period, and a filing within 100 days was not treated as unreasonable in the circumstances. On merits, a confession before Enforcement Directorate officers was treated as admissible, since such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a bare retraction without particulars of coercion or duress did not displace its evidentiary value. The surrounding circumstances, including the cheque transaction involving a non-resident account and the corresponding payment, were sufficient to establish contravention of section 9(1)(a), and the exoneration was reversed with penalty. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457564