Skip to main content

Tax Raids Under IT Act, 1956

The numbers of search warrants executed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and the current year are as under:


Period
Number of warrants executed
2010-11
4852
2011-12
5260
2012-13*
1540
(upto Sept. 2012)

                                  *figures are provisional

Income Tax Department conducts search and seizure actions based on credible information relating to ‘persons’, which include individuals, Hindu undivided families (HUFs), firms, companies, association of persons (AoPs), body of individuals (BoIs), local authorities and any artificial juridical person, who satisfy any of the conditions specified in Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As these persons are engaged in diversified businesses/professions across different sectors spread all over the country, Person-wise/sector-wise details of such operations are not separately maintained. However, data regarding number of search warrants executed is maintained as per the particulars given in answer to above.

As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961, immovable properties cannot be seized during search and seizure actions. The details of assets seized by the Income Tax Department during search and seizure actions during the above mentioned financial years are as under:

Financial Year           Cash (in          Jewellery (in   Other Assets (in         Total Assets (in
                                    Rs. crore)       Rs. crore)       Rs. crore)                   Rs. crore)

2010-11                       440.28             184.15             150.55                         774.98
2011-12                       499.9               271.39             134.3                           905.60
2012-13*                     173.39             71.29               39.61                           290.29
(upto Sept. 2012)
 *figures are provisional

Search proceedings are followed by quasi judicial proceedings, which involve detailed examination of the seized documents. The evidence gathered during the search proceedings are used in assessment and re-assessment of incomes of the persons in whose cases, search actions are undertaken. The amount of tax evaded is quantified after completion of assessment/re-assessment. Any existing liability and the demand arising out of tax/interest/penalty on account of undisclosed income detected during search action, is recovered from the assets seized during search operations. Any assets or its proceeds, which remain after these liabilities have been discharged, are released. Assets may be released with the prior approval of the Commissioners of Income Tax if conditions specified in Section 132 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are met. Such details are available with Assessing Officers, spread all over the country and thus, not maintained centrally.

 The cash seized during searches is deposited in the Government exchequer. However, other assets are dealt with, for application towards the liability as per provisions of Section 132 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more