https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23868 Forfeiture of immovable properties could not be sustained where the assets had been acquired before the notice, one property had been transferred for consideration, and the persons with a real interest or title were not heard; that forfeiture was set aside. By contrast, the appellant's right, title and interest in Neelam Watch Co. was upheld for forfeiture because unexplained capital introductions and accretions were not traced to legitimate sources. The forfeiture of Government bonds and a life insurance policy was also sustained, as the funds used were not satisfactorily explained from lawful withdrawals or other legitimate sources. en-us Mon, 14 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:49:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23868 Forfeiture of immovable properties could not be sustained where the assets had been acquired before the notice, one property had been transferred for consideration, and the persons with a real interest or title were not heard; that forfeiture was set aside. By contrast, the appellant's right, title and interest in Neelam Watch Co. was upheld for forfeiture because unexplained capital introductions and accretions were not traced to legitimate sources. The forfeiture of Government bonds and a life insurance policy was also sustained, as the funds used were not satisfactorily explained from lawful withdrawals or other legitimate sources. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23868