<?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>2006 (4) TMI 265 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111561</link>
    <description>The Passports Act, 1967 was held not to be an exhaustive code excluding independent powers under other enactments. An impounding order issued under section 37(3) of FEMA, read with section 131 of the Income-tax Act, was sustained because the court treated those powers as distinct from the Passport Act regime and rejected the argument that a pending formal proceeding was required. The order was also found supported by adequate recorded material, including an ongoing investigation and risk of evidence being tampered with abroad. However, passport impounding cannot continue indefinitely, so the authorities were directed to review the matter within four months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:11:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 265 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111561</link>
      <description>The Passports Act, 1967 was held not to be an exhaustive code excluding independent powers under other enactments. An impounding order issued under section 37(3) of FEMA, read with section 131 of the Income-tax Act, was sustained because the court treated those powers as distinct from the Passport Act regime and rejected the argument that a pending formal proceeding was required. The order was also found supported by adequate recorded material, including an ongoing investigation and risk of evidence being tampered with abroad. However, passport impounding cannot continue indefinitely, so the authorities were directed to review the matter within four months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>