<?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>2023 (9) TMI 1559 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458096</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA, New Delhi allowed the appeal of a Pakistani national who purchased immovable properties in Dehradun without RBI permission under FEMA regulations. The appellant, a Hindu refugee who arrived in India in 1992 seeking political asylum and later obtained citizenship, had already paid the original penalty of Rs. 3,00,000. The Tribunal found that considering the appellant&#039;s background as a persecuted refugee, eventual naturalization, and payment of the initial penalty, the additional penalty of Rs. 50,000 was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the further penalty while acknowledging that ignorance of law is no defense, concluding that justice was served with the original penalty payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 07:30:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1559 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458096</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA, New Delhi allowed the appeal of a Pakistani national who purchased immovable properties in Dehradun without RBI permission under FEMA regulations. The appellant, a Hindu refugee who arrived in India in 1992 seeking political asylum and later obtained citizenship, had already paid the original penalty of Rs. 3,00,000. The Tribunal found that considering the appellant&#039;s background as a persecuted refugee, eventual naturalization, and payment of the initial penalty, the additional penalty of Rs. 50,000 was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the further penalty while acknowledging that ignorance of law is no defense, concluding that justice was served with the original penalty payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>