<?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>1992 (6) TMI 191 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457963</link>
    <description>Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was applied broadly to payments and receipts made through an agent or on behalf of a person resident outside India. A payment by an Indian agent on foreign principal&#039;s instructions fell within section 9(1)(d), receipt of money in India on behalf of a person abroad attracted section 9(1)(b), and a deposit into the account of a person resident outside India was covered by section 9(1)(a). In each instance, the absence of Reserve Bank permission rendered the conduct unlawful. The penalties were upheld as neither excessive nor unwarranted, and the adjudication orders were affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 191 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457963</link>
      <description>Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was applied broadly to payments and receipts made through an agent or on behalf of a person resident outside India. A payment by an Indian agent on foreign principal&#039;s instructions fell within section 9(1)(d), receipt of money in India on behalf of a person abroad attracted section 9(1)(b), and a deposit into the account of a person resident outside India was covered by section 9(1)(a). In each instance, the absence of Reserve Bank permission rendered the conduct unlawful. The penalties were upheld as neither excessive nor unwarranted, and the adjudication orders were affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>