Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required.
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
