<?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>Share allotment to non-resident paying for imported second-hand machinery: RBI approval upheld despite alleged FERA breach</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95477</link>
    <description>Whether RBI&#039;s permission for allotment of shares to a non-resident against import of second-hand capital goods was legally infirm, including on an alleged FERA violation, was the dominant issue. The court held that the investment involved direct payment by the non-resident for imported machinery, with no foreign-exchange outflow by the company, and was expressly permissible on a non-repatriable basis under the applicable government directive; hence RBI&#039;s approval was valid. It further held that FERA had been repealed prior to the approval and, under FEMA, no RBI permission was required for such allotment; the &quot;sunset&quot; contention therefore did not arise. The intra-court appeal was dismissed - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Share allotment to non-resident paying for imported second-hand machinery: RBI approval upheld despite alleged FERA breach</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95477</link>
      <description>Whether RBI&#039;s permission for allotment of shares to a non-resident against import of second-hand capital goods was legally infirm, including on an alleged FERA violation, was the dominant issue. The court held that the investment involved direct payment by the non-resident for imported machinery, with no foreign-exchange outflow by the company, and was expressly permissible on a non-repatriable basis under the applicable government directive; hence RBI&#039;s approval was valid. It further held that FERA had been repealed prior to the approval and, under FEMA, no RBI permission was required for such allotment; the &quot;sunset&quot; contention therefore did not arise. The intra-court appeal was dismissed - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>