{"id":12,"date":"2008-01-31T20:38:27","date_gmt":"2008-01-31T20:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=12"},"modified":"2008-01-31T20:38:27","modified_gmt":"2008-01-31T20:38:27","slug":"kcc-software-ltd-vs-dit-inv-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/kcc-software-ltd-vs-dit-inv-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"K.C.C. Software Ltd  vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?kcc_software_search.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" \/><\/a>Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u\/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for deposit of seized moneys in fixed deposit. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u\/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/kcc-software-ltd-vs-dit-inv-supreme-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">K.C.C. Software Ltd  vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}