Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.21 seconds)

Geetaben Bharatkumar Shah, , Petlad vs Dy.Cit, Circle-3, , Baroda on 9 December, 2016

"In Mitaben R. Shah, supra, the High Court of Gujarat was dealing with the case where the petitioner made application within permissible missible time limit for release of the gold ornaments explaining the nature of source of acquisition thereof. They were not released even after expiry of time limit of 120 days prescribed by Section of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court held the action on of the respondent authorities to be illegal because the application was rejected during the pendency of the writ petition, though the time sought to file reply affidavit, but it was utilized for the purpose of passing the order so as to make the earlier petition infructuous. The note said to have been prepared by the Assistant Director where the petitioner's claim for release of gold ornaments and jewellery was rejected, was never communicated to the petitioner. The impugned order passed after expiry of the prescribed period of 120 days, was held to be contrary to mandate of proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once the said period is over, respondents have no authority to retain the jewellery, held the High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1