Natural justice in insolvency-professional discipline requires disclosed material; notices based on extraneous material and ignored defences are vitia...
Development rights transfers treated as immovable property, while construction abatement applies and repeated non-payment permits extended service-tax...
Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC
Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
