https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5834 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing the correct legal procedures under the Income Tax Act. It affirmed the Magistrate's jurisdiction in determining ownership of seized assets and clarified that once assessment is completed, the revenue department should seek remedy under Section 226(4) rather than Section 132. The court rejected the appeal by the revenue department, as the District Magistrate's order had become final, concluding that the seized money belonged to the rightful owner, not the respondent. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5834 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing the correct legal procedures under the Income Tax Act. It affirmed the Magistrate's jurisdiction in determining ownership of seized assets and clarified that once assessment is completed, the revenue department should seek remedy under Section 226(4) rather than Section 132. The court rejected the appeal by the revenue department, as the District Magistrate's order had become final, concluding that the seized money belonged to the rightful owner, not the respondent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5834