<?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>Appeal dismissed, confiscation of Rs.89,70,000 refused under s.3(d); withheld funds to be applied against s.13(2) penalties</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93978</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal and upheld the Special Director&#039;s refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed, confiscation of Rs.89,70,000 refused under s.3(d); withheld funds to be applied against s.13(2) penalties</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93978</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal and upheld the Special Director&#039;s refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>