Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The learned Special Judge observed that the fact that the contraband material was collected by the Income Tax Officer on 7th January 2014, during the course of search and seizure in connection with the affairs of Yash Birla Group Companies, did not strictly constitute a seizure of the contraband material. The Income Tax Officers had simply collected the said contraband substance from the co-accused and stored it in the safe and it was, in effect, seized by the empowered officers of respondent No.1 on 10th January 2014.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961—Search and seizure - The applicant was arraigned for the offences punishable under section 8(c) read with section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 for having been found in possession of and also consumed a narcotic drug along with two co-accused. By the criminal revision application, the applicant No.1 assailed the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Greater Bombay, on an application for discharge in NDPS Complaint Case No. 49 of 2014 whereby the Judge was persuaded to reject the application. High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that “the learned Special Judge was within his rights in recording a finding that there was adequate material which justified a strong suspicion of accused No.1-applicant having committed the offence punishable under section 8(c) read with section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. Thus, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction”. - ANANT VARDHAN PATHAK V/s UOI - [2020] 273 TAXMAN 023 (BOM)