https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94983 HC quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94983 HC quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94983