Fema / RBI judiciary-2

PML Act, 2002 Provisions cannot be invoked Retrospectively

M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Director (Karnataka High Court)

By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together, as similar questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, in order to avoid a conflicting judicial opinion. We are also informed that facts are, almost, identical....

Read More

Transaction approved by RBI & Govt not sufficient & assessee has to benchmark royalty payment separately

Sara Lee TTK Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee did not benchmark the royalty payment separately. On enquiry by the TPO, it relied on RBI approval given in 1995 and also on the fact that the assessee earned a gross profit of 41.6%. TPO applied Press Note 9 (2000 series) and restricted it to 1% on the plea that the payment was for use of trademark without transfer of techno...

Read More

Firm or ‘firm name’ is merely a compendious description of all the partners collectively

Overseas Textiles Corporation Vs Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Bombay High Court)

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the firm has failed to take reasonable steps for realizing the export proceeds is a finding based on facts viz: (a) that the appellants continued to export despite continuous defaults made by the said party in clearing the outstanding; (b) that the importer approached R.B.I....

Read More

Charges under FERA provisions can be framed on the basis of statement of co-accused

S.K. Jain Vs M.G. Attri (Delhi High Court)

In the case at hand, there is a recovery of foreign currency from the co-accused. The relationship of employer and employee has been admitted both by the Petitioner and the co-accused. The statement of the co-accused and the other documents seized show that the co-accused was acting on the behest of the Petitioner. ...

Read More

Members cannot be appointed part-time to Fema Tribunal

Rule 2 (1) (b) provides the qualification to be a Member. Needless to say, the same is in total accord with the Act. The first proviso to Rule 5 introduces part time Member. We have held that the said proviso, as far as it introduces the concept of part time Member, is contrary to the provision contained in the enabling Act. Section 46 of...

Read More
Posted Under: Fema / RBI |

FEMA – Claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable

Directorate Of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi (Delhi High Court)

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi ( Delhi HC)- that interest at the rate of 6% per annum under Rule 8 could have been awarded to the respondent on the seized Indian currency only. The learned Single Judge has however applying the said Rule also awarded interest on the seized foreign currency and which cannot be susta...

Read More

SC asks Ketan Ketan Parikh and Co to Deposit deposit 50 percent of penalty imposed for Fema violations

Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (Supreme Court)- Ketan Parikh, Kartik Parikh and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Crores, 12 Crores and 40 Crores respectively by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai for FEMA violations. On appeal, the Appe...

Read More
Posted Under: Fema / RBI |

Section 45(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Others

Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Others- In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts. However, there is no clear allegation so far ab...

Read More
Posted Under: Fema / RBI |

FERA- Where interest received by revenue was relatable to seized amounts from petitioners, which were invested in fixed deposits by revenue, petitioners would be entitled to accrued interest on such seized amounts

R. K. Jewllers v. Union of India (Bombay High Court)APPEAL NO: Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2003, (04/05/2010)

There is no justification on the part of the revenue in retaining the amount of interest earned on the seized amount especially, on the touchstone of the doctrine of accretion....

Read More

Section 11(2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992

M/s Hussnain International Versus Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court)

These are appeals against the order dated 24.09.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No.1098 of 2006 and against the order dated 02.11.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Review Application No.396 of 2007....

Read More
Page 1 of 212

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,305)
Company Law (3,191)
Custom Duty (6,358)
DGFT (3,307)
Excise Duty (3,975)
Fema / RBI (3,103)
Finance (3,269)
Income Tax (24,113)
SEBI (2,639)
Service Tax (3,244)

Featured Posts

Search Posts by Date

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031