https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296990 The court, presided over by Honorable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, ruled that the provisional attachment of property under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was unjustified as the individuals in question had not been subjected to search and seizure. The court ordered the immediate lifting of the attachment on their fixed deposits, emphasizing that the property must belong to the assessee who is searched for the attachment to be valid. This decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring fairness in property attachment cases under income tax laws. en-us Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:23:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296990 The court, presided over by Honorable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, ruled that the provisional attachment of property under Section 132(9B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was unjustified as the individuals in question had not been subjected to search and seizure. The court ordered the immediate lifting of the attachment on their fixed deposits, emphasizing that the property must belong to the assessee who is searched for the attachment to be valid. This decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring fairness in property attachment cases under income tax laws. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296990