<?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 (8) TMI 164 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796291</link>
    <description>Foreign-exchange compliance governing non-resident share transfers, escrow arrangements, overseas-loan security and residential status is examined. Recording bank shares in the names of unapproved non-resident entities was treated as prohibited, with resulting corporate and role-based liability for responsible directors, officers and company secretaries. Escrow accounts and custody arrangements securing overseas loans required prior Reserve Bank permission and could constitute prohibited deposits or guarantees. The chairman&#039;s foreign-exchange charge did not stand because he was treated as resident outside India at the relevant time. Penalties were substantially reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 08:39:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 164 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796291</link>
      <description>Foreign-exchange compliance governing non-resident share transfers, escrow arrangements, overseas-loan security and residential status is examined. Recording bank shares in the names of unapproved non-resident entities was treated as prohibited, with resulting corporate and role-based liability for responsible directors, officers and company secretaries. Escrow accounts and custody arrangements securing overseas loans required prior Reserve Bank permission and could constitute prohibited deposits or guarantees. The chairman&#039;s foreign-exchange charge did not stand because he was treated as resident outside India at the relevant time. Penalties were substantially reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>