<?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 (10) TMI 1162 - TELANGANA &amp; ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350007</link>
    <description>Cash standing to the credit of a bank account may be treated as an asset for seizure purposes, and a later declaration under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 does not by itself displace Section 132B. On the facts noted, the Court found that release of Rs. 5 crores from the seized amount would not prejudice the Department because sufficient funds would remain available to secure any further demand or proceeding. It also noted that, if the scheme declaration was ultimately accepted, the petitioner would be entitled to the remaining release sought, while the RBI bonds would stay with the Department as security until pending or future proceedings concluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 16:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1162 - TELANGANA &amp; ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350007</link>
      <description>Cash standing to the credit of a bank account may be treated as an asset for seizure purposes, and a later declaration under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 does not by itself displace Section 132B. On the facts noted, the Court found that release of Rs. 5 crores from the seized amount would not prejudice the Department because sufficient funds would remain available to secure any further demand or proceeding. It also noted that, if the scheme declaration was ultimately accepted, the petitioner would be entitled to the remaining release sought, while the RBI bonds would stay with the Department as security until pending or future proceedings concluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>