<?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>Court Overturns Refund Order: Evidence Lacking for Seized Goods Ownership Claim by Second Respondent. Decision Requires Reassessment.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51987</link>
    <description>Release of goods seized - the learned Single Judge failed to consider certain facts and directed the appellants to pass refund order in favour of the second respondent, which warrants interference of this Bench. It is not proved that all the seized properties were assessed in the name of the second respondent. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:04:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:04:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Overturns Refund Order: Evidence Lacking for Seized Goods Ownership Claim by Second Respondent. Decision Requires Reassessment.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51987</link>
      <description>Release of goods seized - the learned Single Judge failed to consider certain facts and directed the appellants to pass refund order in favour of the second respondent, which warrants interference of this Bench. It is not proved that all the seized properties were assessed in the name of the second respondent. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:04:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>