https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459803 Admitted contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, involving receipt of money from a person resident outside India in a prohibited manner, did not warrant appellate interference. The plea that the breach was technical, solitary, inadvertent, or caused personal hardship was rejected because the adjudicating authority had already considered those mitigating factors and the penalty was not excessive. The penalty order was therefore affirmed and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459803 Admitted contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, involving receipt of money from a person resident outside India in a prohibited manner, did not warrant appellate interference. The plea that the breach was technical, solitary, inadvertent, or caused personal hardship was rejected because the adjudicating authority had already considered those mitigating factors and the penalty was not excessive. The penalty order was therefore affirmed and the challenge failed. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459803