https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27790 The court emphasized strict compliance with the provisions of section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, requiring approval for retention of seized items within 180 days. Delayed approval beyond the stipulated period does not validate retention retroactively. Citing the intrusive nature of search and seizure, the court rejected the argument that delayed approval could rectify initial invalidity. Relying on precedent, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the return of seized items and awarding costs, as no alternative remedy was available due to lack of timely approval from the Commissioner. en-us Fri, 26 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:59:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27790 The court emphasized strict compliance with the provisions of section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, requiring approval for retention of seized items within 180 days. Delayed approval beyond the stipulated period does not validate retention retroactively. Citing the intrusive nature of search and seizure, the court rejected the argument that delayed approval could rectify initial invalidity. Relying on precedent, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the return of seized items and awarding costs, as no alternative remedy was available due to lack of timely approval from the Commissioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27790