<?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>2006 (9) TMI 627 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457573</link>
    <description>Residential status under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 turns on the person&#039;s intention as shown by surrounding circumstances, including whether he is staying outside India for an uncertain period. On that test, a long period of living and business activity in Malaysia, admissions that the person stayed mostly abroad, and the bank&#039;s own enquiry report supported treatment as a person resident outside India. Income-tax residency findings were not determinative because the statutory tests differ. The note states that transactions with such a person required compliance with FERA, that contraventions under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) were sustained, and that the penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 627 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457573</link>
      <description>Residential status under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 turns on the person&#039;s intention as shown by surrounding circumstances, including whether he is staying outside India for an uncertain period. On that test, a long period of living and business activity in Malaysia, admissions that the person stayed mostly abroad, and the bank&#039;s own enquiry report supported treatment as a person resident outside India. Income-tax residency findings were not determinative because the statutory tests differ. The note states that transactions with such a person required compliance with FERA, that contraventions under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) were sustained, and that the penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>