https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14604 The High Court held that officers lacked jurisdiction to seize or retain immovable property under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the section only applies to specific movable items. The court quashed the orders seizing the immovable properties, ruling that such actions were beyond the authorized officer's powers. The court did not address the exhaustion of alternative remedy under subsection (11) of section 132 due to the lack of jurisdiction by the officers. The petition was allowed, impugned orders were quashed, and any security deposit was directed to be refunded to the petitioner after verification. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:52:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14604 The High Court held that officers lacked jurisdiction to seize or retain immovable property under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the section only applies to specific movable items. The court quashed the orders seizing the immovable properties, ruling that such actions were beyond the authorized officer's powers. The court did not address the exhaustion of alternative remedy under subsection (11) of section 132 due to the lack of jurisdiction by the officers. The petition was allowed, impugned orders were quashed, and any security deposit was directed to be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14604