https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773383 The Bombay HC disposed of a writ petition challenging income tax seizure actions including Panchanamas, seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs.3.17 crores, and warrant under Section 132A of IT Act. The Court found petitioner's application for asset release was incorrectly addressed to Deputy Director instead of Assessing Officer as required under Section 132B. HC directed the Assessing Officer to decide the application within six weeks without expressing opinion on merits, keeping all contentions open. No costs awarded. en-us Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2025 08:29:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773383 The Bombay HC disposed of a writ petition challenging income tax seizure actions including Panchanamas, seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs.3.17 crores, and warrant under Section 132A of IT Act. The Court found petitioner's application for asset release was incorrectly addressed to Deputy Director instead of Assessing Officer as required under Section 132B. HC directed the Assessing Officer to decide the application within six weeks without expressing opinion on merits, keeping all contentions open. No costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773383