<?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>NRNR account contravention penalty upheld, but confiscation set aside for lack of reasons and no factual justification.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98682</link>
    <description>Contravention of the NRNR account regulations attracted penalty against both the authorised dealer and the account holders, because the scheme required the account to be opened only by a non-resident person from funds remitted from outside India, and Section 13(1) of FEMA applied to any person who contravened the Act or regulations. The later omission of Regulation 5(1)(iv) did not extinguish liabilities already incurred, since repeal by omission does not erase prior violations absent contrary intent, so the challenge to the show cause notices failed. Confiscation, however, was set aside because the adjudicating authority and tribunal gave no reasons for ordering it, despite the discretionary nature of Section 13(2) and the repayment of the loan through maturity proceeds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>NRNR account contravention penalty upheld, but confiscation set aside for lack of reasons and no factual justification.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98682</link>
      <description>Contravention of the NRNR account regulations attracted penalty against both the authorised dealer and the account holders, because the scheme required the account to be opened only by a non-resident person from funds remitted from outside India, and Section 13(1) of FEMA applied to any person who contravened the Act or regulations. The later omission of Regulation 5(1)(iv) did not extinguish liabilities already incurred, since repeal by omission does not erase prior violations absent contrary intent, so the challenge to the show cause notices failed. Confiscation, however, was set aside because the adjudicating authority and tribunal gave no reasons for ordering it, despite the discretionary nature of Section 13(2) and the repayment of the loan through maturity proceeds.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>