TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Income-tax Act: High Court emphasizes jurisdiction in search and seizure case</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus MK Gabriel Babu And Another</h3> The High Court of Kerala addressed the interpretation of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case involving a search and seizure conducted by ... Other Valuable Article Or Thing, Search And Seizure Issues involved: Interpretation of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding search and seizure of properties.Summary:The High Court of Kerala addressed the interpretation of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case involving a search and seizure conducted by the Income-tax Officer. The search resulted in the seizure of various properties, including immovable properties covered by the G. C. D. A. Scheme at Kaloor and other properties in Cochin-18. The court analyzed the statutory scheme and concluded that the officer's action lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that search and seizure are interconnected. The court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tarsem Kumar [1986] 161 ITR 505 to support its interpretation.The court further discussed the broad scope of the term 'other valuable article or thing' in section 132(1)(c), noting that it could encompass immovable property. References were made to decisions by the Orissa High Court and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 and CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (India) P. Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 333, respectively. The court highlighted the importance of considering the context in which terms are used in statutes, applying principles like ejusdem generis to interpret specific words.Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment of the learned single judge and dismissed the appeal, disregarding subsequent developments and emphasizing the need for a definitive interpretation of the section for the benefit of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
