<?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>2008 (4) TMI 275 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32082</link>
    <description>A requisition for silver under the Income-tax Act was treated as unsustainable where the silver had already been seized by police in criminal proceedings and custody was before the criminal court. The Department had not produced sufficient material to form a reasonable belief that the silver represented undisclosed assets, which was necessary to justify action under the requisition provision. On those facts, the Magistrate should not have entertained the requisition, and the Sessions Judge&#039;s order setting aside the custody direction was treated as lawful. The criminal seizure and prior court control over the property were decisive, and the revision was not successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 275 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32082</link>
      <description>A requisition for silver under the Income-tax Act was treated as unsustainable where the silver had already been seized by police in criminal proceedings and custody was before the criminal court. The Department had not produced sufficient material to form a reasonable belief that the silver represented undisclosed assets, which was necessary to justify action under the requisition provision. On those facts, the Magistrate should not have entertained the requisition, and the Sessions Judge&#039;s order setting aside the custody direction was treated as lawful. The criminal seizure and prior court control over the property were decisive, and the revision was not successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>