<?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>2003 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11217</link>
    <description>The secrecy bar under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 protects the declaration itself and evidence intrinsically connected with it, but not independent material in a covering letter that merely forwards the declaration. The annexure and attachment containing disclosure particulars were protected, while the letter&#039;s separate admission that the witness was a partner in the firm fell outside the statutory protection. Section 11, which prevents use of a declaration in evidence for penalty or prosecution purposes, did not extend to the independent contents of the covering letter. The objection to production was therefore overruled, and the letter was held producible without the annexure and attachment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11217</link>
      <description>The secrecy bar under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 protects the declaration itself and evidence intrinsically connected with it, but not independent material in a covering letter that merely forwards the declaration. The annexure and attachment containing disclosure particulars were protected, while the letter&#039;s separate admission that the witness was a partner in the firm fell outside the statutory protection. Section 11, which prevents use of a declaration in evidence for penalty or prosecution purposes, did not extend to the independent contents of the covering letter. The objection to production was therefore overruled, and the letter was held producible without the annexure and attachment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>