Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
