<?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>1966 (11) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293025</link>
    <description>Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act is an ancillary power that can be used only after an entry, search and discovery under Section 132(1); where no authorised search occurred and the goods were seized by police in a criminal case, the statutory condition for invoking Section 132(3) was absent. The document also states that once cash already dealt with by a final, unchallenged order under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been released, the Special Magistrate became functus officio and could not entertain a later application concerning the same property. The discussion therefore concludes that the subsequent application was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:24:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=633421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (11) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293025</link>
      <description>Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act is an ancillary power that can be used only after an entry, search and discovery under Section 132(1); where no authorised search occurred and the goods were seized by police in a criminal case, the statutory condition for invoking Section 132(3) was absent. The document also states that once cash already dealt with by a final, unchallenged order under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been released, the Special Magistrate became functus officio and could not entertain a later application concerning the same property. The discussion therefore concludes that the subsequent application was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>