https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8983 The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of retaining documents beyond 180 days as the extension was granted within the statutory period. The court clarified that the extension order need not be communicated within 180 days, emphasizing the petitioner's right to challenge it. No violation of section 138 was found regarding sharing information with other authorities. The court interpreted the term "authorized officer" broadly, validating the extension obtained by the officer seeking it. The petitioner's failure to properly mark annexures contributed to confusion, but the court ultimately upheld the validity of retention orders and extensions. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8983 The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of retaining documents beyond 180 days as the extension was granted within the statutory period. The court clarified that the extension order need not be communicated within 180 days, emphasizing the petitioner's right to challenge it. No violation of section 138 was found regarding sharing information with other authorities. The court interpreted the term "authorized officer" broadly, validating the extension obtained by the officer seeking it. The petitioner's failure to properly mark annexures contributed to confusion, but the court ultimately upheld the validity of retention orders and extensions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8983