<?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>2014 (4) TMI 247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245776</link>
    <description>Seized gold bars could not be released or sold for adjustment against tax liability before the assessment was completed under section 132B of the Income-tax Act. The provision allows seized or requisitioned assets to be applied only towards an existing liability or a liability determined on completion of assessment, and an existing liability means one already crystallised. The first proviso operates only where the assessee applies within time and satisfactorily explains the nature and source of acquisition to the Assessing Officer. As those conditions were not met, a direction to dispose of the asset outside the statutory framework was not warranted, and writ relief had to remain within the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245776</link>
      <description>Seized gold bars could not be released or sold for adjustment against tax liability before the assessment was completed under section 132B of the Income-tax Act. The provision allows seized or requisitioned assets to be applied only towards an existing liability or a liability determined on completion of assessment, and an existing liability means one already crystallised. The first proviso operates only where the assessee applies within time and satisfactorily explains the nature and source of acquisition to the Assessing Officer. As those conditions were not met, a direction to dispose of the asset outside the statutory framework was not warranted, and writ relief had to remain within the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>