Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the Income Tax authorities have the power to seek interim custody of currency notes seized and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate or reported to the magistrate u/s 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When the Income Tax Act empowers the competent authority to requisition assets of assessees and adjust them towards liabilities, if there is reason to believe that the asset represents undisclosed income or property, the competent authority is best suited to hold the seized currency notes until the inquiry or trial concludes. Section 132A allows requisitioning books of account, and the competent authority can seek interim custody of seized assets, even if unable to issue a requisition u/s 132A when the asset is produced before the magistrate. The competent authority can apply for interim custody u/s 451 of the CrPC to prevent Sections 132A and 132B from becoming futile. The direction in an earlier case for returning the amount if proceedings are not completed within six months is unwarranted, as disbursement can be ordered only at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial u/s 452 of the CrPC.
The High Court held that the Income Tax authorities have the power to seek interim custody of currency notes seized and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate or reported to the magistrate u/s 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When the Income Tax Act empowers the competent authority to requisition assets of assessees and adjust them towards liabilities, if there is reason to believe that the asset represents undisclosed income or property, the competent authority is best suited to hold the seized currency notes until the inquiry or trial concludes. Section 132A allows requisitioning books of account, and the competent authority can seek interim custody of seized assets, even if unable to issue a requisition u/s 132A when the asset is produced before the magistrate. The competent authority can apply for interim custody u/s 451 of the CrPC to prevent Sections 132A and 132B from becoming futile. The direction in an earlier case for returning the amount if proceedings are not completed within six months is unwarranted, as disbursement can be ordered only at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial u/s 452 of the CrPC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
