<?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>1980 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36078</link>
    <description>Voluntary disclosure of gold and gold jewellery under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 can attract statutory immunity where the prescribed conditions are met. The disclosed assets were accepted by the income-tax authorities, assessment was completed, tax was paid, and the gold remained the petitioner&#039;s property despite seizure. The declaration particulars were forwarded to the Gold Control Officer, the disclosure was acted upon by the excise authorities, and no reliable material showed non-compliance or any pending Gold (Control) Act proceeding. As the seizure was not under section 58 of the Gold (Control) Act, the conditions for denying immunity were not established, and the seized articles were not liable to retention or further action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:07:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36078</link>
      <description>Voluntary disclosure of gold and gold jewellery under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 can attract statutory immunity where the prescribed conditions are met. The disclosed assets were accepted by the income-tax authorities, assessment was completed, tax was paid, and the gold remained the petitioner&#039;s property despite seizure. The declaration particulars were forwarded to the Gold Control Officer, the disclosure was acted upon by the excise authorities, and no reliable material showed non-compliance or any pending Gold (Control) Act proceeding. As the seizure was not under section 58 of the Gold (Control) Act, the conditions for denying immunity were not established, and the seized articles were not liable to retention or further action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>