<?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>1999 (4) TMI 667 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457816</link>
    <description>Receipt in India of remuneration for performances abroad does not, by itself, amount to receipt on behalf of a person resident outside India under foreign exchange law; the payment remains a person&#039;s own remuneration unless the statutory ingredient of third-party receipt is proved. A charge of holding foreign exchange outside India likewise requires reliable proof of actual ownership or possession abroad, and cannot rest on an uncorroborated third-party statement or an unclear seized entry. The material described in the text was treated as insufficient to establish either contravention, so the penalty basis failed on both charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:29:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 667 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457816</link>
      <description>Receipt in India of remuneration for performances abroad does not, by itself, amount to receipt on behalf of a person resident outside India under foreign exchange law; the payment remains a person&#039;s own remuneration unless the statutory ingredient of third-party receipt is proved. A charge of holding foreign exchange outside India likewise requires reliable proof of actual ownership or possession abroad, and cannot rest on an uncorroborated third-party statement or an unclear seized entry. The material described in the text was treated as insufficient to establish either contravention, so the penalty basis failed on both charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>