Fema / RBI : The article explains that the FLA Return is a position-based FEMA compliance triggered by outstanding foreign investments, not by ...
Fema / RBI : RBI has updated the FLA Return FAQs, clarifying who must file, the 15 July deadline, revision procedures, and reporting requiremen...
Fema / RBI : The 2026 FEMA amendment expands portfolio investment eligibility beyond NRIs and OCIs to all individuals resident outside India. I...
Fema / RBI : The article examines how recent FEMA reforms have simplified downstream investments while highlighting unresolved issues involving...
Fema / RBI : India has expanded portfolio investment access by allowing any individual resident outside India to invest in listed Indian compan...
Corporate Law : Authorities found Dubai property acquisitions by Indian residents routed through hawala, leading to action for violations of FEMA ...
Fema / RBI : BCAS submits comments on RBI’s draft External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) regulations, seeking clarity on eligibility, KYC norms...
Fema / RBI : BCAS provides feedback on draft FEMA trade regulations, flags concerns over AD bank powers, seeks clarity and consistency....
Fema / RBI : New FEMA rules allow settlement of foreign exchange violations with penalties up to ₹5 crore. Pending cases will follow earlier ...
Fema / RBI : The Government amended FEMA regulations, enabling resolution of violations up to ₹5 crore by paying fines. Ongoing cases follow ...
Fema / RBI : The Karnataka High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the respondents satisfied the definition of person resident ...
Fema / RBI : The key issue was whether cash falls within the definition of property under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash is a tangi...
Fema / RBI : The case examined whether Indian assets could remain seized after foreign asset value was repatriated. The Tribunal ruled that onc...
Fema / RBI : The appellant claimed the disputed funds were received unknowingly and had attempted to return them. The Tribunal granted relief b...
Fema / RBI : The Tribunal held that bank accounts cannot remain frozen merely because the account holder is related to a suspect or under inves...
Fema / RBI : The RBI has withdrawn non-operative FEMA circulars after reviewing directives issued since June 2000. The ruling helps Authorised ...
Fema / RBI : RBI has rationalised FEMA reporting by introducing revised return formats, discontinuing several reports, and easing compliance re...
Fema / RBI : RBI has allowed Authorised Dealer Category-I banks to exclude hedged positions arising from FCNR(B) deposits, ECBs, and OFCBs whil...
Fema / RBI : The RBI has directed all AD Category-I banks to submit daily data on FCNR(B) deposits, ECBs, and OFCBs mobilized under its swap fa...
Fema / RBI : RBI's Sixth Amendment to the FEMA Deposit Regulations broadens the scope of SNRR accounts by permitting IFSC branches to maintain ...
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED’s attachment of a resort property, ruling it a benami transaction designed to circumvent the law, especially after media scrutiny over CRZ violations. The court found that the beneficial owner’s act of guaranteeing the benamidar’s loan used for the property purchase confirmed the beneficial control.
The SAFEMA Tribunal upheld the attachment of land registered in a tribal’s name, finding it a benami transaction under the amended Act. The ruling confirmed that purchasing restricted tribal land using funds provided by a non-tribal beneficial owner for future commercial resort development is illegal circumvention.
The Tribunal upheld the ED’s attachment of ₹4.04 crore worth of properties acquired through extortion and land grabbing. The ruling confirms that merely filing Income Tax Returns (ITRs) is insufficient to establish a lawful income source when no supporting business evidence or financial trail exists for the claimed income.
An Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED’s provisional attachment of properties in a major fraud case. The ruling confirmed that the 2009 amendment to Section 5(1) of PMLA permits property attachment even if the owners are not formally charged, provided attachment is necessary to prevent asset concealment.
The Tribunal confirmed the attachment of properties linked to a large Ponzi scheme, finding the alleged unregistered sale agreement with a massive cash component highly suspicious and likely ante-dated. The ruling emphasized that the genuineness of such transactions is highly questionable in PMLA cases.
The Tribunal set aside the freezing of bank accounts and seizure of assets under PMLA, ruling that the Enforcement Directorate’s failure to provide the fundamental FIR documents violated statutory procedure. The key takeaway is that FIRs are essential Relied Upon Documents for PMLA proceedings and their non-supply vitiates the entire adjudication order.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment of two plots of land, ruling the cash-paid transactions were benami because the appellant failed to prove the source of consideration. The ruling confirmed that the funds were provided by an unidentified person, satisfying the test under PBPTA Section 2(9)(D).
The legal issue was whether property acquired before the predicate offense date can be attached as a value-equivalent under PMLA. The Tribunal confirmed the attachment, ruling that pre-offence property can be attached to secure the vanished proceeds of crime. Key Takeaway: PMLA’s definition of proceeds of crime includes equivalent value property, overriding the acquisition timeline when actual proceeds are untraceable.
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s revocation and confirmed the benami attachment on a ₹9.5 lakh transaction that occurred during demonetisation. The transaction was found to be an accommodation entry where cash was deposited into an account and immediately transferred to a firm against commission.
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the attachment of multiple properties linked to an NDPS convict, rejecting the spouse’s claims of legitimate acquisition. The ruling emphasized that unverified cash gifts and loans, and mere ITR filings, are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 68J of the NDPS Act.
