<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1345 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787197</link>
    <description>Section 6(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act permits a resident to hold, transfer or invest foreign currency acquired while non-resident only if the funds are legitimately acquired and duly substantiated; unexplained or illegitimate funds fall outside its protection. On the facts, transfer messages, cash and fragmented receipts, and uncorroborated third party explanations led to rejection of the appellant&#039;s claim under that provision. Factual findings that receipts were not appellant&#039;s salary, were in cash and in parts, and were afterthoughts sustain contravention of the foreign exchange provisions; the tribunal nevertheless reduced the monetary penalty on mitigating grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:41:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1345 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787197</link>
      <description>Section 6(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act permits a resident to hold, transfer or invest foreign currency acquired while non-resident only if the funds are legitimately acquired and duly substantiated; unexplained or illegitimate funds fall outside its protection. On the facts, transfer messages, cash and fragmented receipts, and uncorroborated third party explanations led to rejection of the appellant&#039;s claim under that provision. Factual findings that receipts were not appellant&#039;s salary, were in cash and in parts, and were afterthoughts sustain contravention of the foreign exchange provisions; the tribunal nevertheless reduced the monetary penalty on mitigating grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>