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...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Seized cash cannot be automatically released after 120 days u/s 132B's second proviso. This proviso applies only after the Assessing Officer determines the existing liability and approves asset return. Without such determination, the second proviso does not apply. The first proviso lacks a timeline, while the second proviso requires the AO's assessment. Despite disclosures and applications, the AO did not decide on liability or asset return here. The High Court correctly held that Section 132B's second proviso does not mandate automatic release after 120 days. However, since cash was seized from petitioners' lockers after prior disclosure, authorities must decide on their application with a reasoned order within four weeks, potentially refunding with interest if the source is satisfactorily explained u/s 132B(4)(a)&(b).
Seized cash cannot be automatically released after 120 days u/s 132B's second proviso. This proviso applies only after the Assessing Officer determines the existing liability and approves asset return. Without such determination, the second proviso does not apply. The first proviso lacks a timeline, while the second proviso requires the AO's assessment. Despite disclosures and applications, the AO did not decide on liability or asset return here. The High Court correctly held that Section 132B's second proviso does not mandate automatic release after 120 days. However, since cash was seized from petitioners' lockers after prior disclosure, authorities must decide on their application with a reasoned order within four weeks, potentially refunding with interest if the source is satisfactorily explained u/s 132B(4)(a)&(b).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.