<?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>2000 (8) TMI 61 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14842</link>
    <description>Section 281B permits provisional attachment during assessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer, with prior approval, considers it necessary to protect revenue. Judicial review is limited to cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, manifest arbitrariness, or non-application of mind; the court will not substitute its own view on the choice of assets. On the facts, the Department relied on search material, seizure of documents, investigation into allegedly inflated depreciation claims, and a likely substantial tax demand. The assessee could not insist that different properties be attached. The provisional attachment orders were therefore sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:56:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 61 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14842</link>
      <description>Section 281B permits provisional attachment during assessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer, with prior approval, considers it necessary to protect revenue. Judicial review is limited to cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, manifest arbitrariness, or non-application of mind; the court will not substitute its own view on the choice of assets. On the facts, the Department relied on search material, seizure of documents, investigation into allegedly inflated depreciation claims, and a likely substantial tax demand. The assessee could not insist that different properties be attached. The provisional attachment orders were therefore sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>