https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783981 The dominant issue was whether gold jewellery constituting stock-in-trade, seized by the tax department, could be retained or released only upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The HC held that, under the proviso to s.132(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, stock-in-trade is not liable to seizure; if such goods are nonetheless seized, the department cannot justify continued retention or condition release on security. On the facts, the petitioners prima facie discharged the burden to establish the nature and source of the assets, attracting the first proviso to s.132B(1)(i) and the relevant Board instruction. The HC directed release of the seized jewellery without insisting on any security. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783981 The dominant issue was whether gold jewellery constituting stock-in-trade, seized by the tax department, could be retained or released only upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The HC held that, under the proviso to s.132(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, stock-in-trade is not liable to seizure; if such goods are nonetheless seized, the department cannot justify continued retention or condition release on security. On the facts, the petitioners prima facie discharged the burden to establish the nature and source of the assets, attracting the first proviso to s.132B(1)(i) and the relevant Board instruction. The HC directed release of the seized jewellery without insisting on any security. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783981