<?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>2020 (7) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292923</link>
    <description>A time-bound voluntary disclosure scheme granting limited immunity for declarations made within six months was treated as a public policy measure meant to compile an inventory of exotic live species. The Court held that, during the protected period, directing enforcement authorities to inquire into the source of licit acquisition or possession of voluntarily declared stock would defeat the scheme&#039;s object and undermine the immunity expressly promised. The earlier ruling between the parties was treated as binding on the domestic possession and trade position, and no legal basis was found to compel action contrary to the scheme. The request for directions was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:18:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292923</link>
      <description>A time-bound voluntary disclosure scheme granting limited immunity for declarations made within six months was treated as a public policy measure meant to compile an inventory of exotic live species. The Court held that, during the protected period, directing enforcement authorities to inquire into the source of licit acquisition or possession of voluntarily declared stock would defeat the scheme&#039;s object and undermine the immunity expressly promised. The earlier ruling between the parties was treated as binding on the domestic possession and trade position, and no legal basis was found to compel action contrary to the scheme. The request for directions was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>