<?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 (2) TMI 1493 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466665</link>
    <description>Seized documents, admissions and corroborative inquiry material established unauthorised foreign exchange transfers, receipt of funds in India for remittance abroad, and receipt of payments in India for persons resident outside India, so liability was upheld against the company and its directors under the management-liability provision. The pen-drive evidence was treated as primary evidence because the device itself was seized, so a certificate under the electronic-evidence rule was not required and admissibility was maintained. The finding on the separate foreign-exchange contravention was set aside for lack of supporting discussion, while penalties on the sustained contraventions were reduced and confiscation of the seized currencies was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:10:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1493 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466665</link>
      <description>Seized documents, admissions and corroborative inquiry material established unauthorised foreign exchange transfers, receipt of funds in India for remittance abroad, and receipt of payments in India for persons resident outside India, so liability was upheld against the company and its directors under the management-liability provision. The pen-drive evidence was treated as primary evidence because the device itself was seized, so a certificate under the electronic-evidence rule was not required and admissibility was maintained. The finding on the separate foreign-exchange contravention was set aside for lack of supporting discussion, while penalties on the sustained contraventions were reduced and confiscation of the seized currencies was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>