https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343752 A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts and gives inconsistent disclosure is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Delhi HC found that the petitioners failed to disclose their links with the searched person and the beneficial ownership pattern in bank records, which defeated their claim to equitable relief. The Court also held that Section 132 of the Income-tax Act is wide enough to cover money in bank accounts, including third-party accounts, where there is reason to believe it represents undisclosed income; restraint and remittance directions under Sections 132(3) and 132B were therefore upheld, and the writ challenge failed. en-us Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343752 A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts and gives inconsistent disclosure is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Delhi HC found that the petitioners failed to disclose their links with the searched person and the beneficial ownership pattern in bank records, which defeated their claim to equitable relief. The Court also held that Section 132 of the Income-tax Act is wide enough to cover money in bank accounts, including third-party accounts, where there is reason to believe it represents undisclosed income; restraint and remittance directions under Sections 132(3) and 132B were therefore upheld, and the writ challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343752