Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court quashes notice for unauthorized camp office, upholds petitioner's rights</h1> <h3>Prakash V. Sanghvi Versus Ramesh G., Major Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.) and Director of Income-tax (Inv.)</h3> Prakash V. Sanghvi Versus Ramesh G., Major Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.) and Director of Income-tax (Inv.) - [2013] 356 ITR 426 Issues:1. Validity of summons and panchnama issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Authority of the first respondent to enter the petitioner's home and issue the notice.3. Compliance with the provisions of section 131 of the Income-tax Act regarding discovery and inspection.4. Allegations of trespassing and unauthorized seizure of documents and cash.5. Jurisdiction of the respondent authorities to issue a warrant for search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act.6. Timing and legality of the search and seizure operation conducted by the first respondent.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the summons and panchnama issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging unauthorized entry into his home by the first respondent. The court noted that the notice issued was without authority of law as it required the petitioner to appear at a camp office set up in his residence, which was not supported by any provision of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the first respondent lacked the authority and jurisdiction to enter the petitioner's house and set up a camp office for recording statements, thereby quashing the notice dated January 19, 2012.2. The court examined the provisions of section 131 of the Income-tax Act, which grant powers of discovery and inspection similar to those vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was observed that the first respondent's actions did not align with the legal framework, as there was no provision allowing the establishment of a camp office in the petitioner's residence. The court emphasized that the notice issued to the petitioner was not in accordance with the law, leading to the conclusion that the first respondent exceeded his authority in this regard.3. The court considered the argument presented by the respondent's counsel, asserting that the notice issued under section 131(1)(a) was valid and within the scope of the Income-tax Act. However, the court disagreed, highlighting that the first respondent's actions, including the establishment of a camp office in the petitioner's house, were not supported by the legal provisions governing discovery and inspection under the Income-tax Act.4. The petitioner's claim of trespassing and unauthorized seizure of documents and cash by the first respondent was addressed by the court. It was noted that the allegations of trespass into the petitioner's house and subsequent issuance of the notice were not contested by the respondent. The court emphasized the seriousness of such actions, suggesting that the first respondent could face prosecution before a criminal court for trespassing without legal authority.5. The court delved into the jurisdictional aspect of issuing a warrant for search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. It was observed that the search and seizure operation conducted by the first respondent, armed with a warrant, was not preceded by the necessary legal procedures. The court found the submission that the search and seizure were unauthorized to be prima facie valid, indicating a lack of compliance with the statutory requirements.6. Regarding the timing and legality of the search and seizure operation, the court noted the absence of specific details regarding the issuance of the warrant and the conduct of the search. While acknowledging the petitioner's pending return for assessment, the court reserved the petitioner's right to challenge any future assessment order. The court limited the scope of the petition to the validity of the initial notice, ultimately quashing the notice dated January 19, 2012, while keeping the possibility of challenging the panchnama and warrant open for future proceedings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found