Home Case Index All Cases FEMA 2015 2015 2015 (4) FEMA - 2015 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

FEMA - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 5 of 5 Records

• 2015 (4) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Violation of the provisions of FEMA - penalty u/s 13 (1) of FEMA imposed - freezing the bank account as exercised by Assistant Director under Section 37 (3) of FEMA - HELD THAT:- The above provision empowers the Assistant Director to exercise powers under the Income Act 1961. Thus the communication dated 17/11/2014 freezing the petitioners' fixed deposit account in Bank of Baroda is submitted to be in terms of Section 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. However, in terms of Sections 132 (8) of the Income Tax Act 1961 the life of such a freezing order is only 60 days.

  Admittedly, the period of 60 days have long expired after the communication dated 17/11/2014. Mr. Vaze, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate is not able to show any extension granted or any other communication thereafter freezing the account. Consequently, the communication dated 17/11/2014 is no longer valid in law and the same is quashed and set side. For the purpose of this petition we have not examined the larger issue viz. the scope of Section 37 of FEMA and its applicability even after the show cause notice has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority.

  We do not interfere with the show cause notice dated 18/12/2014. However, the Adjudicating Authority shall dispose of the show cause noticed dated 18/12/2014 as expeditiously as possible after following the principles of Natural Justice.

  ---

• 2015 (4) TMI 1217 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY, NEW DELHI
  

  Applications for additional evidences - denial of natural justice - offence under SAFEMA - Held that:- After careful perusal of all the submissions and documents we are satisfied that the Competent Authority decided the case without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to produce all the evidence before him. We are also guided by the fact that upon verification and examination, the submissions about the legal acquisition of the forfeited properties have been found to be acceptable by the ld. Authorized representative for the respondent. We accordingly allow both the miscellaneous applications for additional evidences filed by the applicants/appellants and take on record the additional documents filed by the appellants.

  ---

• 2015 (4) TMI 985 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of petitioner - Prevention of smuggling of goods - Held that:- Detaining authority, after passing the detention order dated 27th February, 1989 was indifferent in securing the detenu by not taking proper action with great caution. It further appears that the police authorities of the Respondent No.4 were also not prompt in their action in executing the said detention order and the execution of the said detention order was unduly delayed, which allowed the detenu to remain at large for a long period and has consequently defeated the very purpose of the impugned order. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay occurred in executing the order of detention after a lapse of abut 26 years. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of P.U. Iqbal (1991 (12) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT), the delay throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently renders the detention order bad and invalid because of the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed thereby setting at liberty the detenu forthwith - Decided in favour of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (4) TMI 639 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of penalty - prohibition of any payment into a credit of a resident outside India except with general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India - Held that:- Admittedly, the payment was made in India towards customs duty payable by the non-resident Indian while importing the car. The adjudicatory authority with reference to notification No.16/2000, dated 03/05/2000 held that only certain payments are allowed to be made in favour of a resident outside India during his stay in India and not one that was paid by the petitioner to the importer of the car, who is a Non-resident Indian. - The payment now effected is not one referable as permitted under notification No.16/2000, dated 03/05/2000. The notification No.FEMA/17/RB-2000, dated 03/05/2000 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in this matter, as the same deals with the payment in Indian rupees to residents of Nepal and Bhutan. The adjudicatory authority passed the order after adverting to the relevant provisions. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the adjudicatory authority in regard to the decision making process - Decided against the appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (4) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Contravention of Section 9 (1) (b) and (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Penalty u/s 50 - Criminal prosecution for Economic Offences - Economic Offences Court acquitted the appellant holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt - Imposition of pre deposit condition for hearing appeal against imposition of penalty - Held that:- In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank's case (2006 (2) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), which has also been rendered under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, the plea of the appellant that on his acquittal in the criminal case, no penalty is imposable on him, does not merit consideration, since the Supreme Court has categorically held that adjudication and prosecution are two independent proceedings and the finding in one is not conclusive in the other. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. - Decided against appellant.

  ---

1