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

 

FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 108 Records

  • 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.


  • 1995 (3) TMI 426

    ... ...
    ... ... o of the principles relating to remand, apart from the fact that sole reliance has been placed on Rules which are no longer applicable. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is liable to dismissal, and is dismissed accordingly.


  • 1995 (2) TMI 358

    ... ...
    ... ... quisition of the properties, which are the subject-matter of forfeiture by virtue of the impugned order, have been discussed in detail by the learned Member, with which I am in full agreement. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby dismissed.


  • 1994 (11) TMI 367

    ... ...
    ... ... pellants are entitled to succeed on the one ground, as discussed above. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned order under section 7 of the Act dated March 7, 1980, and consequential order under section 19(1) of the Act, are set aside.


  • 1994 (11) TMI 366

    ... ...
    ... ... able to be forfeited, for the aforesaid reasons. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the forfeiture order dated October 26, 1993, under section 7(1) of the Act is set aside and so also the consequential order passed under section 19(1) of the Act.


  • 1994 (11) TMI 365

    ... ...
    ... ... rces it has been rightly held to be liable to forfeiture by the competent authority, under section 68-I of the Act by order dated March 10, 1993. There is, thus no merit in appeal, and the same is liable to be dismissed, and is dismissed accordingly.


  • 1994 (9) TMI 314

    ... ...
    ... ... shall ensure that a copy of the reasons recorded, if not already supplied, is also sent to the appellant. The Competent Authority shall pass an appropriate order thereafter, within four months of the receipt of the copy of this order in his office.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Let's just recapitulate:

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

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