https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216624 The court upheld the validity of the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the conditions for initiating the operation were met. However, it ruled that the authorized officer did not have the authority to seize stock-in-trade, as mandated by the third proviso to Section 132(1)(iii). The court emphasized that stock-in-trade must be inventoried and not seized, even if it represents undisclosed income, in line with legislative intent and CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2003. Consequently, the court ordered the return of seized jewellery to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216624 The court upheld the validity of the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the conditions for initiating the operation were met. However, it ruled that the authorized officer did not have the authority to seize stock-in-trade, as mandated by the third proviso to Section 132(1)(iii). The court emphasized that stock-in-trade must be inventoried and not seized, even if it represents undisclosed income, in line with legislative intent and CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2003. Consequently, the court ordered the return of seized jewellery to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216624