<?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 (10) TMI 1277 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780480</link>
    <description>HC dismissed the writ appeals and upheld the return of compounding applications. The court held that under the proviso to Rule 8(2), once the Enforcement Directorate expresses that proceedings involve a serious contravention with suspected money laundering, the Compounding Authority must not proceed and should remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 13 FEMA. The Compounding Authority was therefore justified and the challenges were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1277 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780480</link>
      <description>HC dismissed the writ appeals and upheld the return of compounding applications. The court held that under the proviso to Rule 8(2), once the Enforcement Directorate expresses that proceedings involve a serious contravention with suspected money laundering, the Compounding Authority must not proceed and should remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 13 FEMA. The Compounding Authority was therefore justified and the challenges were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>