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...
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
