https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13414 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to return the seized jewellery within fifteen days and pay costs to petitioner No.1. The court emphasized that assets should be returned once tax liabilities are cleared, citing provisions of the Income-tax Act and relevant legal precedents. The court highlighted that the mere filing of an appeal does not justify asset retention, and if the Revenue wishes to retain assets, they must obtain a stay order. The decision was based on the petitioners fulfilling their tax obligations, leading to the court allowing the writ petition for the return of the jewellery. en-us Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2009 17:25:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13414 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to return the seized jewellery within fifteen days and pay costs to petitioner No.1. The court emphasized that assets should be returned once tax liabilities are cleared, citing provisions of the Income-tax Act and relevant legal precedents. The court highlighted that the mere filing of an appeal does not justify asset retention, and if the Revenue wishes to retain assets, they must obtain a stay order. The decision was based on the petitioners fulfilling their tax obligations, leading to the court allowing the writ petition for the return of the jewellery. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13414