https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21993 The HC held that the preconditions under s.132(1)(a)-(c) of the Income-tax Act were not satisfied and that the authorisation for search and seizure issued by the Investigation Wing was arbitrary, lacking any rational nexus between the information and the belief of undisclosed income. Rumours of high professional earnings and "roaring practice" were held insufficient as tangible material to justify search. The HC also held that the Department has no power to confine or restrict the movement of a person during search. Allowing the writ petition, the HC quashed the s.132(1) authorisation and all consequential actions, and directed return of all seized documents, cash and jewellery within two weeks. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21993 The HC held that the preconditions under s.132(1)(a)-(c) of the Income-tax Act were not satisfied and that the authorisation for search and seizure issued by the Investigation Wing was arbitrary, lacking any rational nexus between the information and the belief of undisclosed income. Rumours of high professional earnings and "roaring practice" were held insufficient as tangible material to justify search. The HC also held that the Department has no power to confine or restrict the movement of a person during search. Allowing the writ petition, the HC quashed the s.132(1) authorisation and all consequential actions, and directed return of all seized documents, cash and jewellery within two weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21993