TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Timely Disposal of Appeal & Release of Seized Assets</h1> <h3>S.A. Kamleshkumar Amarchand (HUF) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I (2), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle IV (2), Nungambakkam, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai</h3> S.A. Kamleshkumar Amarchand (HUF) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I (2), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle IV ... Issues involved:1. Writ petition seeking the release of seized gold and jewellery.2. Delay in disposal of appeal by the 3rd respondent.3. Consideration of petitioner's request for release of gold and jewellery by the 2nd respondent.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to release 20,643.97 gms of gold and jewellery seized. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the 3rd respondent, causing irreparable monetary loss and hardship as the gold and jewellery remain with the respondents. The counsel requested the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a time frame and the 2nd respondent to consider releasing the items, citing a relevant legal precedent. The respondents' counsel agreed to the time frames proposed by the petitioner's counsel.2. The Judge, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. Additionally, the 2nd respondent was instructed to consider the petitioner's request for the release of gold and jewellery in line with the legal precedent cited by the petitioner's counsel and to issue orders within four weeks from the date of the order. The judgment emphasized adherence to the law and established ratios in similar cases.3. The Writ Petition was disposed of without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment focused on ensuring timely disposal of the appeal and consideration of the petitioner's request for the release of the seized items within specified time frames, following legal principles and precedents.This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised in the Writ Petition, the arguments presented by both parties' counsels, and the court's directives to address the delays in the appeal process and the petitioner's request for the release of seized gold and jewellery.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
