https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28284 Orders under section 132(5) were not time-barred because the ninety-day period was computed from the date the Income-tax Officer with jurisdiction took legal possession and control of the seized assets under the Income-tax Act, not from the earlier physical taking of custody elsewhere. The High Court held that seizure for limitation purposes is not confined to the moment of first physical custody, and authorities dealing with seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. On that basis, the impugned orders were found to be within time and valid, and the limitation challenge was rejected. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:56:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28284 Orders under section 132(5) were not time-barred because the ninety-day period was computed from the date the Income-tax Officer with jurisdiction took legal possession and control of the seized assets under the Income-tax Act, not from the earlier physical taking of custody elsewhere. The High Court held that seizure for limitation purposes is not confined to the moment of first physical custody, and authorities dealing with seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. On that basis, the impugned orders were found to be within time and valid, and the limitation challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28284