https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457918 Contravention of section 9(1)(b) of FERA was said to require proof that money was received by or on behalf of a non-resident without corresponding inward remittance, together with knowledge of the essential facts making the receipt prohibited; bare receipt was insufficient. On the stated facts, inward remittance material, NRE withdrawals and bona fide belief in lawful receipt supported the appellants, and the related charge was unsustainable. Payments made from amounts lawfully received and covered by RBI general permission did not attract section 9(1)(d). Amounts earned by the second appellant for renovation work, recorded in his books and tax returns, were not receipts on behalf of a non-resident and did not fall within section 9(1)(b). en-us Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457918 Contravention of section 9(1)(b) of FERA was said to require proof that money was received by or on behalf of a non-resident without corresponding inward remittance, together with knowledge of the essential facts making the receipt prohibited; bare receipt was insufficient. On the stated facts, inward remittance material, NRE withdrawals and bona fide belief in lawful receipt supported the appellants, and the related charge was unsustainable. Payments made from amounts lawfully received and covered by RBI general permission did not attract section 9(1)(d). Amounts earned by the second appellant for renovation work, recorded in his books and tax returns, were not receipts on behalf of a non-resident and did not fall within section 9(1)(b). Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457918