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 Short Notes News Articles Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA Tri FEMA - Tri This
Citation -
Order by


FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 114 Records

  • 1999 (4) TMI 579

    ... ...
    ... ... aforesaid reasons, we hold that the sale in favour of the appellant as well as his predecessors in title, were all null and void and hence the appeal has no legs to stand and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition stands rejected.

  • 1999 (2) TMI 624

    ... ...
    ... ... ty dated October 31, 1995, so far as item No. 1, which is, 1 acre 36 cents of land with building in Survey No. 81/1-I in Thrikodithanam village, Chenganacheri, is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the said extent and is dismissed in other respects.

  • 1999 (2) TMI 623

    ... ...
    ... ... roper service within the meaning of section 22 of the SAFEMA and the period of limitation started running from that date. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no grounds for reviewing our order dated October 26, 1998, and the petition is dismissed.

  • 1999 (2) TMI 622

    ... ...
    ... ... ing a certified copy of the order so far and will do so now. However, we are not attaching much importance to this aspect. In the view we have taken that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.

  • 1998 (10) TMI 511

    ... ...
    ... ... etent authority is directed not to implement the order dated October 14, 1998, until November 16, 1998, i.e., till the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the order on October 17, 1998. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.

  • 1998 (6) TMI 539

    ... ...
    ... ... tified and is confirmed. The appellant is at liberty to approach the competent authority for the option of payment of fine in lieu of forfeiture in respect of house properties under forfeiture. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to this extent.

  • 1998 (4) TMI 502

    ... ...
    ... ... Bombay dated July 18, 1995, has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The learned judges upheld the transaction in favour of the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the competent authority.

  • 1998 (2) TMI 540

    ... ...
    ... ... e result of this appeal, we do not propose to pass any order which is different from that of the High Court. The same will be subject to the final result of the inquiry before the Competent Authority. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

  • 1998 (1) TMI 491

    ... ...
    ... ... is also covered by the provisions of the SAFEMA. We, therefore, overrule the contention of the appellant with regard to the maintainability and application of the provisions of the SAFEMA to the appellant. The appeal will be considered on its merits.

  • 1998 (1) TMI 490

    ... ...
    ... ... 1953 and 1955 when the detenu, Shri Virendra Kumar Rai, was only 5 mdash 7 years of age and not liable for forfeiture and (d) that properties listed at S. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 have been correctly forfeited. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

  • 1998 (1) TMI 489

    ... ...
    ... ... not even a provision in the Act enabling the Appellate Tribunal to take suo motu action, even if the order of the competent authority is found to be incorrect. With these observations, we are constrained to dismiss these appeals as not maintainable.

  • 1997 (6) TMI 338

    ... ...
    ... ... ther strange. Accordingly, we modify this part of the impugned order and order defreezing of the forfeiture of Rs. 21,000. In the result, except to the extent stated in paras. 11 and 13 (pages 45 and 46 supra) above, the appeal is otherwise rejected.

  • 1997 (6) TMI 337

    ... ...
    ... ... pose to go into the merits. We accordingly allow F. P. A. Nos. 14/Mds of 1996 and 15/Mds of 1996 and set aside the orders of forfeiture of the Competent Authority. F. P. A. Nos. 16/Mds of 1996 and 17/Mds of 1996 will be dealt with by separate orders.

  • 1997 (4) TMI 464

    ... ...
    ... ... therefore go into the merits of the case, as admittedly, the appeal was filed long after the expiry of 60 days after receipt of the order under appeal. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

  • 1996 (4) TMI 448

    ... ...
    ... ... rson, Chandalal Kalidas Mehta. For all these reasons, we are unable to uphold this type of order. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated April 30, 1979, passed under section 7(9) by the Competent Authority, Ahmedabad.

  • 1995 (12) TMI 339

    ... ...
    ... ... allow the appeal. In view of the observations made in paragraphs 20, 24 and 25 (see pages 112, 114 and 115) of the foregoing order, we direct that a copy of this order be forwarded to all the Competent Authorities for their information and guidance.

  • 1995 (12) TMI 338

    ... ...
    ... ... iture failing payment of this amount of fine within the stipulated time, this property shall also be liable to be forfeited to the Central Government. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is disposed of in the above terms.

  • 1995 (11) TMI 380

    ... ...
    ... ... As already discussed, here in this Act, there is an express limit of sixty days. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was not admitted for this reason and stands rejected being barred by time.

  • 1995 (6) TMI 185

    ... ...
    ... ... hat the order of forfeiture, in this case, of the properties owned by the appellant, is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed under section 7(1) of the Act on September 15, 1994.

  • 1995 (3) TMI 427

    ... ...
    ... ... justifiable material for holding against the appellant and proceeding to forfeit even his small running business of watch repairing, which is the source of his livelihood. Accordingly, we find it a fit case to allow the appeal and order accordingly.

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.