#search and seizure

The Delhi High Court upheld a GST search under Section 67 at an advocate's office, ruling that advocate-client privilege does not shield personal conduct from investigation. It directed safeguards for examining seized electronic data while permitting the probe to continue, affecting advocates facing tax inquiries.

The Telangana High Court held that under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, police must individually communicate the right to be searched before a search; failure to do so vitiates seizure and undermines conviction. The ruling acquitted the accused and underscores the procedural safeguard’s importance for all NDPS prosecutions.

The Supreme Court ruled that in urgent narcotics raids, merely substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act satisfies procedural requirements, and Section 50’s notice-to-owner provision does not apply to vehicle searches. This narrows procedural safeguards for suspects and streamlines enforcement actions.

Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that while Sec 50 mandates informing a suspect of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, failure to do so alone does not invalidate a trial court's finding of reasonable doubt. The ruling limits the fatal impact of such procedural lapses in NDPS cases.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that reassessments under Section 153C cannot proceed if the deemed date of search falls on or after April 1, 2021, due to the Finance Act 2021 amendment that eliminated the power to initiate such proceedings beyond that date. This decision protects taxpayers from retrospective application of reassessment powers and clarifies the temporal limits of search-related assessments under the Income Tax Act.

For assessments under Section 153C, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi ruled that the assessing officer’s date of satisfaction - not the search date or handover of seized material - determines jurisdictional validity. This clarifies a critical procedural gap for post-2021 searches where handover records are missing, protecting assessees from invalid proceedings based on administrative delays.

ITAT Jaipur holds that rough estimates of jewellery purchases found on a mobile phone, without proof of actual transactions or physical possession, cannot justify additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The ruling reinforces strict evidentiary standards for unexplained investments, protecting assessees from double taxation based on loose notings.

Kerala High Court rules that searches in private vehicles at public places between sunset and sunrise require strict compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, including warrant and grounds of belief. Non-compliance vitiates the search, entitling the accused to bail, even if the recovery occurs in a public place.

ITAT Delhi rules that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act are invalid if incriminating material is handed over after 01.04.2021, even if the search occurred earlier. This holding establishes that the jurisdictional trigger is the date of handover, not the search date, impacting all pending assessments under the repealed provision.

ITAT Delhi rules that a single satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act is legally defective, nullifying the assessment. The ruling reinforces strict procedural compliance for search and seizure assessments, impacting taxpayers and tax authorities alike.

The Gauhati High Court affirmed that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not invalidate a conviction under the NDPS Act when forensic analysis and unbroken chain of custody establish deliberate possession. This reinforces that procedural hiccups cannot override substantive evidence in drug trafficking cases, setting a clear standard for trial courts handling similar evidentiary challenges.

When tax assessment relies on documents seized from a person other than the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal mandates that Section 153C’s special assessment regime applies exclusively - overriding the general reassessment power under Section 147. This clarifies jurisdictional boundaries for assessing unrelated parties and prevents arbitrary reassessments based on unrelated search material.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned a conviction after police failed to record written reasons for searching a vehicle under Section 165 CrPC and depended on a witness with a pattern of appearing in police cases. This ruling reinforces that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in search operations and that reliance on habitual police witnesses undermines evidentiary credibility in excise and criminal prosecutions.

ITAT Pune rules that unaccounted cash receipts ('on-money') must be assessed under the unified peak credit method, striking down separate additions under Section 69A. The decision mandates a single peak computation for undisclosed income, preventing double taxation and ensuring consistency in tax assessments for real estate developers.

ITAT Delhi sets aside assessments under Section 153C where no incriminating material connects the assessee to alleged commission receipts. The ruling invalidates protective additions when substantive additions fail, reinforcing that jurisdictional validity under Section 153C hinges on direct evidence linking the assessee to undisclosed income.