https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421619 The court ruled in favor of the writ applicant, finding that they had met the requirements of Section 132B by timely applying and adequately explaining the source of the seized diamonds. The Income Tax Officer's failure to respond within the statutory period rendered the continued retention of the diamonds illegal. The court ordered the release of the diamonds to the applicant within four weeks, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the statutory time limit under Section 132B and the necessity of complying with it. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421619 The court ruled in favor of the writ applicant, finding that they had met the requirements of Section 132B by timely applying and adequately explaining the source of the seized diamonds. The Income Tax Officer's failure to respond within the statutory period rendered the continued retention of the diamonds illegal. The court ordered the release of the diamonds to the applicant within four weeks, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the statutory time limit under Section 132B and the necessity of complying with it. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421619