<?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>Confiscation of NRE and savings account funds under Section 63 FERA held discretionary, not automatic, appeal dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94478</link>
    <description>HC examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term &quot;may&quot; and requires the authority to have &quot;reason to believe&quot; that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT&#039;s approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Confiscation of NRE and savings account funds under Section 63 FERA held discretionary, not automatic, appeal dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94478</link>
      <description>HC examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term &quot;may&quot; and requires the authority to have &quot;reason to believe&quot; that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT&#039;s approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>