https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414900 The court found that the 1st respondent, not the 2nd respondent, encashed the seized IVP's without authority, acting contrary to law. The encashments were deemed void as they were not in accordance with statutory provisions. The court granted relief by setting aside previous judgments, quashing certain documents, and directing the 3rd respondent to reevaluate the application under the KVS Scheme in compliance with the law. The writ appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414900 The court found that the 1st respondent, not the 2nd respondent, encashed the seized IVP's without authority, acting contrary to law. The encashments were deemed void as they were not in accordance with statutory provisions. The court granted relief by setting aside previous judgments, quashing certain documents, and directing the 3rd respondent to reevaluate the application under the KVS Scheme in compliance with the law. The writ appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414900