https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21020 The court upheld the validity of the search and seizure operation conducted by the Income-tax Department, rejecting the petitioners' claims that the seizure was unlawful. It emphasized that disputes regarding ownership of seized money should be addressed in proceedings under the Income-tax Act, declining to delve into factual disputes. The court also affirmed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to authorize asset requisition, finding that the conditions precedent for issuing the warrant of authorization were satisfied. The petitioners' requests to restrain proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act were deemed unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of both writ petitions and imposition of costs on the parties. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:44:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21020 The court upheld the validity of the search and seizure operation conducted by the Income-tax Department, rejecting the petitioners' claims that the seizure was unlawful. It emphasized that disputes regarding ownership of seized money should be addressed in proceedings under the Income-tax Act, declining to delve into factual disputes. The court also affirmed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to authorize asset requisition, finding that the conditions precedent for issuing the warrant of authorization were satisfied. The petitioners' requests to restrain proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act were deemed unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of both writ petitions and imposition of costs on the parties. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21020