https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457747 In FERA adjudication, a penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(a) may be sustained where the alleged gift is found to be a sham transaction supported by consideration. The analysis noted that the remittance was outside the protective scope of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 because the gift predated that enactment. The remitter's statement suggested gifts were issued against a premium, and no reliable material showed that no consideration had passed. The recipient also failed to rebut the evidence or produce the co-noticee, so the penalty was upheld. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457747 In FERA adjudication, a penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(a) may be sustained where the alleged gift is found to be a sham transaction supported by consideration. The analysis noted that the remittance was outside the protective scope of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 because the gift predated that enactment. The remitter's statement suggested gifts were issued against a premium, and no reliable material showed that no consideration had passed. The recipient also failed to rebut the evidence or produce the co-noticee, so the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457747