https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25797 The court held that the Assistant Director of Inspection (ADI) lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner, a firm of income-tax practitioners, under section 124 of the Income-tax Act. The ADI was required to transfer seized documents to the Income-tax Officer (ITO) within 15 days. Retaining documents beyond 180 days under section 132(8) was deemed illegal as the ADI did not have jurisdiction. The Commissioner's extension of document retention was invalidated, and the court granted the petitioner's writ petition, ordering the return of documents and awarding costs of Rs. 500. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:12:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25797 The court held that the Assistant Director of Inspection (ADI) lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner, a firm of income-tax practitioners, under section 124 of the Income-tax Act. The ADI was required to transfer seized documents to the Income-tax Officer (ITO) within 15 days. Retaining documents beyond 180 days under section 132(8) was deemed illegal as the ADI did not have jurisdiction. The Commissioner's extension of document retention was invalidated, and the court granted the petitioner's writ petition, ordering the return of documents and awarding costs of Rs. 500. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25797