https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792398 Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to depend on whether a foreign asset was being held by a resident in suspected contravention of Section 4 on the date of seizure, not on when it was acquired, so the retrospective challenge failed. However, where the foreign property had been disclosed, transferred out of the resident's and family members' names, and the equivalent foreign exchange was remitted into India with supporting documents, the purpose of Section 37A was treated as achieved. In that situation, the proviso to Section 37A(4) empowered the authority to set aside seizure of the equivalent asset in India, and the seizure was annulled. en-us Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792398 Section 37A(1) of FEMA was held to depend on whether a foreign asset was being held by a resident in suspected contravention of Section 4 on the date of seizure, not on when it was acquired, so the retrospective challenge failed. However, where the foreign property had been disclosed, transferred out of the resident's and family members' names, and the equivalent foreign exchange was remitted into India with supporting documents, the purpose of Section 37A was treated as achieved. In that situation, the proviso to Section 37A(4) empowered the authority to set aside seizure of the equivalent asset in India, and the seizure was annulled. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792398