https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756586 Search authorisation under section 132 was supported by recorded information and reasons to believe, so the jurisdictional challenge failed on that point. However, the court held that alleged violations of search safeguards, privacy-based constitutional objections, and complaints of high-handed conduct required fresh examination, and remitted those matters for reconsideration. It also disapproved treating non-communication of reasons for centralisation under section 127 as a mere procedural irregularity, and sent that issue back for review. The challenges to notices under sections 153A and 153C, and the provisional attachment and consequential notices and assessments under sections 143(2) and 143(3), were likewise remitted for independent reconsideration. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Aug 2024 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756586 Search authorisation under section 132 was supported by recorded information and reasons to believe, so the jurisdictional challenge failed on that point. However, the court held that alleged violations of search safeguards, privacy-based constitutional objections, and complaints of high-handed conduct required fresh examination, and remitted those matters for reconsideration. It also disapproved treating non-communication of reasons for centralisation under section 127 as a mere procedural irregularity, and sent that issue back for review. The challenges to notices under sections 153A and 153C, and the provisional attachment and consequential notices and assessments under sections 143(2) and 143(3), were likewise remitted for independent reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756586