<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (8) TMI 584 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106443</link>
    <description>Forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, 1976 applies only to property that is first shown to be connected with a detenu&#039;s illegally acquired assets or prohibited earnings. A relative&#039;s independent property cannot be forfeited merely because of the relationship, and the burden under section 8 shifts to the affected person only after the department establishes that nexus. The authorities erred by treating the failure to explain sources of income as sufficient without proving the statutory link, so the forfeiture orders could not stand and required fresh consideration under the Act&#039;s scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 584 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106443</link>
      <description>Forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, 1976 applies only to property that is first shown to be connected with a detenu&#039;s illegally acquired assets or prohibited earnings. A relative&#039;s independent property cannot be forfeited merely because of the relationship, and the burden under section 8 shifts to the affected person only after the department establishes that nexus. The authorities erred by treating the failure to explain sources of income as sufficient without proving the statutory link, so the forfeiture orders could not stand and required fresh consideration under the Act&#039;s scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>