https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27005 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the return of seized assets by a specified date. It found the approval for continued retention of assets invalid due to lack of communication and proper authorization. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the judgment highlighted the necessity of recording reasons, Commissioner approval, and communication to the assessee for lawful retention. Despite a delay in filing the writ petition, the court deemed it inconsequential, invalidating the retention of assets beyond a specific date. The decision underscores adherence to statutory provisions and awarded costs to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:11:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27005 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the return of seized assets by a specified date. It found the approval for continued retention of assets invalid due to lack of communication and proper authorization. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the judgment highlighted the necessity of recording reasons, Commissioner approval, and communication to the assessee for lawful retention. Despite a delay in filing the writ petition, the court deemed it inconsequential, invalidating the retention of assets beyond a specific date. The decision underscores adherence to statutory provisions and awarded costs to the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27005