https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404759 Entitlement to seized cash could not be decided in writ jurisdiction because rival claims of ownership raised a disputed question of fact. The Court held that such issues must be resolved in assessment proceedings before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which were already pending, and directed all concerned persons to appear and cooperate so the proceedings could be concluded expeditiously. It further accepted that if the seized amount, or any part of it, was ultimately found to be taxable income and tax had been paid, refund would follow in accordance with law. The legality of the seizure was left open. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:52:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404759 Entitlement to seized cash could not be decided in writ jurisdiction because rival claims of ownership raised a disputed question of fact. The Court held that such issues must be resolved in assessment proceedings before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which were already pending, and directed all concerned persons to appear and cooperate so the proceedings could be concluded expeditiously. It further accepted that if the seized amount, or any part of it, was ultimately found to be taxable income and tax had been paid, refund would follow in accordance with law. The legality of the seizure was left open. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404759