<?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>1994 (1) TMI 321 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457950</link>
    <description>Section 9 of FERA applies only to compensatory foreign-exchange payments: receipt of Indian currency by a partner in settlement of partnership accounts, where the money was received in her own right, did not amount to payment by or on behalf of a non-resident, so contravention under section 9(1)(b) was not established. A later transfer of equivalent Indian currency to the same non-resident after foreign exchange was received through normal banking channels likewise did not attract section 9(1)(a), as there was no compensatory payment or loss of foreign exchange. By contrast, acquisition of foreign currency otherwise than through authorised dealers sustained contravention under section 8(1), although confiscation was set aside for want of deliberate unlawful acquisition or intended prohibited use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 1994 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=771396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 321 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457950</link>
      <description>Section 9 of FERA applies only to compensatory foreign-exchange payments: receipt of Indian currency by a partner in settlement of partnership accounts, where the money was received in her own right, did not amount to payment by or on behalf of a non-resident, so contravention under section 9(1)(b) was not established. A later transfer of equivalent Indian currency to the same non-resident after foreign exchange was received through normal banking channels likewise did not attract section 9(1)(a), as there was no compensatory payment or loss of foreign exchange. By contrast, acquisition of foreign currency otherwise than through authorised dealers sustained contravention under section 8(1), although confiscation was set aside for want of deliberate unlawful acquisition or intended prohibited use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>