Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Director Of Inspection Of Income ... vs Pooran Mal & Sons & Another on 20 September, 1974
It is worthy of note that in Bhagwandas's case, the ornaments were attached under Sub-section (3) of Section 132 on July 11, 1969, not because the authorised officers had doubts about the ornaments being undisclosed property, but because the same could not be seized on July 10, 1969, on account of dangerous situation having been developed at the spot, which did not allow the search to proceed on. The silver bars in Pooran Mall's case were not in his possession, but were with two banks and the ornaments, etc., in Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh's case were in two lockers of the Delhi Safe Deposit Company and were not in the possession of either Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh or her daughter, Mrs. Mala Singh, at the spot.
Kanwal Shamsher Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 January, 1974
It is worthy of note that in Bhagwandas's case, the ornaments were attached under Sub-section (3) of Section 132 on July 11, 1969, not because the authorised officers had doubts about the ornaments being undisclosed property, but because the same could not be seized on July 10, 1969, on account of dangerous situation having been developed at the spot, which did not allow the search to proceed on. The silver bars in Pooran Mall's case were not in his possession, but were with two banks and the ornaments, etc., in Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh's case were in two lockers of the Delhi Safe Deposit Company and were not in the possession of either Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh or her daughter, Mrs. Mala Singh, at the spot.
Balwant Singh And Tohers vs R. D. Shah, Director Of Inspection, ... on 22 March, 1968
8. Therefore, the warrant of authorisation .directs a general search. It is only when the search is made and the jewellery, ornaments or money, if discovered therein, are, on scrutiny, found to be undisclosed property, that the same can be seized under Clause (in) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132. The word "such" occurring in Clauses (i), (iii) and (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 is of importance. It signifies that the jewellery, ornaments or money, etc., to be seized must be the one as mentioned in Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 132. That is to say that the same are found to be undisclosed property. Therefore, as I understand, the scheme of Section 132 of the Act postulates that the mind has to be applied by two officers at two different stages, i.e., firstly, by the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner while issuing the warrant of search to come, to a finding that any person is in possession of any jewellery, ornaments or money, etc., which are believed to be undisclosed property, and, secondly, by the authorised officer, when during the search any particular jewellery, ornament or money is found, to see that the same can be reasonably believed to be undisclosed property. Similar view was expressed in Balwant Singh v. R. D. Shah, Director of Inspection, Income-tax, [1969] 71 ITR 580 (Delhi).
Section 132A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagwandas Narayandas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad ... on 18 June, 1973
It is worthy of note that in Bhagwandas's case, the ornaments were attached under Sub-section (3) of Section 132 on July 11, 1969, not because the authorised officers had doubts about the ornaments being undisclosed property, but because the same could not be seized on July 10, 1969, on account of dangerous situation having been developed at the spot, which did not allow the search to proceed on. The silver bars in Pooran Mall's case were not in his possession, but were with two banks and the ornaments, etc., in Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh's case were in two lockers of the Delhi Safe Deposit Company and were not in the possession of either Mrs. Kanwal Shamsher Singh or her daughter, Mrs. Mala Singh, at the spot.
1