<?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>2013 (7) TMI 550 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235392</link>
    <description>Forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was held unsustainable where the petitioner could substantiate lawful sources for acquisition and construction, including gifted land, a financial corporation loan, scrap-sale proceeds and part of her money-lending income. The Court found that the authorities had not proved with reliable documentary material that the funds attributed to the petitioner&#039;s husband were illegally acquired, and it also noted that the construction began before the valuation date adopted in the notice and that the land value was not separately assessed consistently with the notice. Inordinate delay in completing the proceedings and resulting prejudice further undermined the forfeiture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 550 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235392</link>
      <description>Forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was held unsustainable where the petitioner could substantiate lawful sources for acquisition and construction, including gifted land, a financial corporation loan, scrap-sale proceeds and part of her money-lending income. The Court found that the authorities had not proved with reliable documentary material that the funds attributed to the petitioner&#039;s husband were illegally acquired, and it also noted that the construction began before the valuation date adopted in the notice and that the land value was not separately assessed consistently with the notice. Inordinate delay in completing the proceedings and resulting prejudice further undermined the forfeiture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>