Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
HC quashed the warrant of authorization and declared the search operation illegal under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the authorized officer, Sri Adarsh Kumar, improperly issued a notice under Section 131(1A) after conducting search operations, which violated procedural restrictions. The court emphasized that the power to issue such notices is strictly limited and must be exercised before initiating search proceedings. While the search warrant was invalidated, the court clarified that this does not automatically extend to other parties named in the satisfaction note, and the revenue authorities retain the right to pursue alternative legal actions against the petitioners.
HC quashed the warrant of authorization and declared the search operation illegal under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the authorized officer, Sri Adarsh Kumar, improperly issued a notice under Section 131(1A) after conducting search operations, which violated procedural restrictions. The court emphasized that the power to issue such notices is strictly limited and must be exercised before initiating search proceedings. While the search warrant was invalidated, the court clarified that this does not automatically extend to other parties named in the satisfaction note, and the revenue authorities retain the right to pursue alternative legal actions against the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.