Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
