Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interim release of seized cash to the Income Tax Department was treated as a protective arrangement pending determination of its source, tax liability and ownership. The Trial Court required an indemnity bond and deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank fixed deposit with automatic renewal, preserving the parties' positions until final adjudication. The High Court found that this arrangement caused no prejudice warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, as all substantive issues remained open. The criminal petition challenging the interim arrangement was dismissed, while the income-tax proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously and further relief could be sought before the Trial Court.
Interim release of seized cash to the Income Tax Department was treated as a protective arrangement pending determination of its source, tax liability and ownership. The Trial Court required an indemnity bond and deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank fixed deposit with automatic renewal, preserving the parties' positions until final adjudication. The High Court found that this arrangement caused no prejudice warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, as all substantive issues remained open. The criminal petition challenging the interim arrangement was dismissed, while the income-tax proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously and further relief could be sought before the Trial Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.