<?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>2005 (11) TMI 539 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457650</link>
    <description>FERA resident status depends on the statutory test of purpose and intention to remain outside India for an uncertain period. On the facts discussed, the three Shroff daughters were treated as persons resident outside India because they had continued to live abroad and no reliable material showed an intention to return within a definite period. Liability under section 19(1)(b) required proof that the transferor knew the transferee was non-resident; the Tribunal found that such knowledge was not established, and the derivative charge under section 68 could not survive. The discussion contrasts the FERA approach with the later FEMA definition but applies FERA throughout.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 539 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457650</link>
      <description>FERA resident status depends on the statutory test of purpose and intention to remain outside India for an uncertain period. On the facts discussed, the three Shroff daughters were treated as persons resident outside India because they had continued to live abroad and no reliable material showed an intention to return within a definite period. Liability under section 19(1)(b) required proof that the transferor knew the transferee was non-resident; the Tribunal found that such knowledge was not established, and the derivative charge under section 68 could not survive. The discussion contrasts the FERA approach with the later FEMA definition but applies FERA throughout.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>