Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
