Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA Tri FEMA - Tri This
Citation -
Order by


FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 120 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1241

    Transfer of share in favour of NRI - Permission for such transfer was not obtained from RBI - Compounding of offence by RBI - Imposition of penalty - Held that - offence has taken place when FERA was in force as it is clearly reflected by the letter of RBI who refused to entertain the application for compounding stating that the violation is under FERA and the provision of compounding was not there under the said Act. The compounding is permissib....... + More

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1239

    Violation of Section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) of FERA - Imposition of penalty - Confiscation of seized money - Admissibility of evidence - Held that - Adjudicating Authority has recorded statement of Smt. Gurmej Kaur who in her statement admitted that her husband is staying at Dubai and the documents (loose sheets and diary) is written in the handwriting of her husband who alone can explain the same regarding recovery of Rs. 65,000/- seized f....... + More

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1237

    ... ...
    ... ... appellants have made payment to Rakesh Arora and thus violated provision of Section 9(1) (a) of FERA for receiving gift of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each of them. Hence no interference in the Impugned Order is called for and all the appeals stand dismissed.

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1236

    ... ...
    ... ... rate of Enforcement has erroneously imposed the penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on the appellant. In such circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The amount of penalty deposited by the appellant be returned to him.

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1235

    ... ...
    ... ... under the instructions of Al Nasir Ghilani who is resident of Dubai. And thus the violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) is proved. I find pruned and therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Both the appeals stand dismissed.

  • 2011 (1) TMI 1234

    ... ...
    ... ... -2009. The said view is followed by this Tribunal while deciding Revision Petition No. 10/2002, dated 13-1-2011 in case of J.K. Jain v. Director of Enforcement. In view of this judgment, the present appeal is not maintainable and dismiss accordingly.

  • 2010 (12) TMI 1079

    ... ...
    ... ... emsp The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the penalty. The said amount shall be subject to the final order passed by the Director of Enforcement and shall be refunded only after final order passed. The appeal stands disposed off.

  • 2010 (10) TMI 1158

    ... ...
    ... ... the gravity of the charge levelled against the appellants. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is confirmed and upheld. The appeals are dismissed having no merits. The pre-deposited amount may be appropriated towards penalty.

  • 2010 (10) TMI 1157

    ... ...
    ... ... msp;Thus on the basis of facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that the review petition is not maintainable and is rejected. An order is passed accordingly. The record of this petition may be consigned to Record Room

  • 2010 (10) TMI 944

    ... ...
    ... ... the aforesaid circumstances in absence of any legal evidence support the finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority and Director Enforcement Directorate this appeal is allowed and impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- is set aside.

  • 2010 (10) TMI 936

    ... ...
    ... ... ugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed having no merits. The appellant is directed to deposit the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the respondent may recover the same in accordance with law.

  • 2008 (7) TMI 850

    ... ...
    ... ... enalty amount. The appellants are permitted to deposit the balance penalty amount in their respective appeals within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Enforcement Directorate will recover the same in accordance with law.

  • 2008 (6) TMI 550

    ... ...
    ... ... e impugned order is sustained and maintained. The appellants are required to deposit their respective penalty immediately without loss of time on receipt of this order failing which Enforcement Directorate may recover the same in accordance with law.

  • 2008 (5) TMI 698

    ... ...
    ... ... nt has not shown any bona fide in compliance with the said conditional order. Thus no equity lies in favour of the appellant. In such a situation, this appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of judicial order. This appeal may be consigned to record.

  • 2008 (4) TMI 781

    ... ...
    ... ... 0/- to ₹ 30,000/-. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be partly allowed. An order is passed accordingly. The amount of penalty is reduced from ₹ 60,000/- to ₹ 30,000/-. The pre-deposited amount may be appropriated towards penalty.

  • 2001 (10) TMI 1102

    ... ...
    ... ... the Central Government to be represented through the Central Government counsel to have themselves represented as per our suggestion or in any other manner deemed fit by them, by appointing any other counsel. Post these appeals on November 28, 2001.

  • 2001 (4) TMI 476

    Natural justice - Recorded Media - Valuation - Confiscation and redemption fine - E-mail transfers not goods

  • 2001 (2) TMI 982

    ... ...
    ... ... in that case was only four days, whereas, the delay in the present case is over two decades and hence, no liberal view can be taken. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 12/DLI of 2001 also stands dismissed.

  • 2001 (1) TMI 920

    ... ...
    ... ... h regard to the first property, namely, the land measuring 4 cents and 920 sq. links in Elamkulam village and confirm the forfeiture of the residential house bearing No. B-5 at Cochin and dismiss the appeal so far as the second property is concerned.

  • 1999 (10) TMI 702

    ... ...
    ... ... e are, therefore, of the view that rule 11 is not applicable and the order being an order on the merits, cannot be set aside. For all the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed that consequently M. P. A. No. 102/MDS of 1999 also stands rejected.

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.