https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24516 The court held that the search warrant issued under section 132(1) was valid as the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the authority's belief of undisclosed assets. It clarified that assets attached under section 132(3) do not constitute a seizure and can be retained by the owner. The court deemed the restraint order under section 132(3) regarding woollen yarn and carpets as illegal but directed a prompt enquiry for their release. The request for the return of seized books of account was denied as valid approval was obtained within the stipulated time. The writ petition was partly allowed without costs. en-us Sat, 05 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:44:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24516 The court held that the search warrant issued under section 132(1) was valid as the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the authority's belief of undisclosed assets. It clarified that assets attached under section 132(3) do not constitute a seizure and can be retained by the owner. The court deemed the restraint order under section 132(3) regarding woollen yarn and carpets as illegal but directed a prompt enquiry for their release. The request for the return of seized books of account was denied as valid approval was obtained within the stipulated time. The writ petition was partly allowed without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 05 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24516