<?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>2017 (2) TMI 158 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338458</link>
    <description>Police interception of undisclosed cash during enquiry, followed by transfer of the amount to the tax department, was treated as lawful where no FIR or penal prosecution had been shown. The commentary further explains that the PMGKY Deposit Scheme applies only where prosecution for the specified offences has been initiated by complaint or charge-sheet, not where investigation is merely pending, and that an eligible declarant may still seek consideration under the Scheme. It also notes that the person may have counsel present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation and may receive protection against coercive steps, while unconditional release of the seized cash was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 158 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338458</link>
      <description>Police interception of undisclosed cash during enquiry, followed by transfer of the amount to the tax department, was treated as lawful where no FIR or penal prosecution had been shown. The commentary further explains that the PMGKY Deposit Scheme applies only where prosecution for the specified offences has been initiated by complaint or charge-sheet, not where investigation is merely pending, and that an eligible declarant may still seek consideration under the Scheme. It also notes that the person may have counsel present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation and may receive protection against coercive steps, while unconditional release of the seized cash was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>