<?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>2025 (7) TMI 486 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774418</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi upheld the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority for contravention of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. The case involved a technical breach where respondents submitted the mandatory FC-GPR form within the stipulated time but with an incorrect surname. The Tribunal found the AA&#039;s order fair and judicious, noting that respondents demonstrated clear intention to comply with RBI provisions regarding FDI. The respondents accepted their error and deposited the penalty amount. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s request to enhance the penalty, concluding the imposed amount was appropriate for the technical violation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:50:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 486 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774418</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi upheld the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority for contravention of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. The case involved a technical breach where respondents submitted the mandatory FC-GPR form within the stipulated time but with an incorrect surname. The Tribunal found the AA&#039;s order fair and judicious, noting that respondents demonstrated clear intention to comply with RBI provisions regarding FDI. The respondents accepted their error and deposited the penalty amount. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s request to enhance the penalty, concluding the imposed amount was appropriate for the technical violation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>