https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13215 The court upheld the decision in exhibit P2, rejecting the petitioner's claim for a 20% reward of the seized amount. The court emphasized that the reward rules focus on extra taxes realized due to the information provided, not the total amount seized. It found the committee's decision to be proper, considering factors such as accuracy of information, help rendered, risks undertaken, and extra taxes realized. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim did not warrant court intervention, citing precedents from other High Courts. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2009 12:33:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13215 The court upheld the decision in exhibit P2, rejecting the petitioner's claim for a 20% reward of the seized amount. The court emphasized that the reward rules focus on extra taxes realized due to the information provided, not the total amount seized. It found the committee's decision to be proper, considering factors such as accuracy of information, help rendered, risks undertaken, and extra taxes realized. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim did not warrant court intervention, citing precedents from other High Courts. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13215