https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789308 Funds remitted by a non-resident investor were treated as falling within Regulation 5(1) because the record did not show a genuine non-repatriation investment under Schedule 4. The company's treatment of the receipt as unsecured borrowing and later as share application money, the absence of share issuance within the stipulated period, and the lack of proper intimation to the RBI and authorised dealer supported findings of contravention under FEMA. Denial of cross-examination caused no prejudice where the breaches were proved by documentary material. Penalty under FEMA was described as a civil liability not requiring mens rea, but the monetary sanction was moderated on proportionality grounds. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789308 Funds remitted by a non-resident investor were treated as falling within Regulation 5(1) because the record did not show a genuine non-repatriation investment under Schedule 4. The company's treatment of the receipt as unsecured borrowing and later as share application money, the absence of share issuance within the stipulated period, and the lack of proper intimation to the RBI and authorised dealer supported findings of contravention under FEMA. Denial of cross-examination caused no prejudice where the breaches were proved by documentary material. Penalty under FEMA was described as a civil liability not requiring mens rea, but the monetary sanction was moderated on proportionality grounds. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789308