<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (5) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12434</link>
    <description>HC held the notification empowering the Additional Director (Investigation) to authorize searches beyond his statutory rank was invalid; the Additional Director lacked power to issue authorisations/warrants and did not apply independent mind. Searches and seizures at the charitable trust and certain related premises were unlawful for failure to record reasons and comply with section 132(1) requirements. Where the authorised officer lacked jurisdiction, seized books/documents must be handed to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction under section 132(9A). Searches at other specified commercial premises were upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12434</link>
      <description>HC held the notification empowering the Additional Director (Investigation) to authorize searches beyond his statutory rank was invalid; the Additional Director lacked power to issue authorisations/warrants and did not apply independent mind. Searches and seizures at the charitable trust and certain related premises were unlawful for failure to record reasons and comply with section 132(1) requirements. Where the authorised officer lacked jurisdiction, seized books/documents must be handed to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction under section 132(9A). Searches at other specified commercial premises were upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>