<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788818</link>
    <description>The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 was treated as the governing special statute on the facts, with the Court holding that attachments and seizures under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 did not displace its depositor-protection scheme. The Special Court was regarded as competent to direct release of the seized money into an escrow account for the benefit of depositors, because the funds arose from the deposit-taking transaction and the statutory mechanism contemplated routing them to satisfy investors&#039; claims. The challenge to the release order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788818</link>
      <description>The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 was treated as the governing special statute on the facts, with the Court holding that attachments and seizures under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 did not displace its depositor-protection scheme. The Special Court was regarded as competent to direct release of the seized money into an escrow account for the benefit of depositors, because the funds arose from the deposit-taking transaction and the statutory mechanism contemplated routing them to satisfy investors&#039; claims. The challenge to the release order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>