Ashish Chatterjee Vs Union of India & Ors
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns.
Result: Operative order controls. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.N. Nag, Mr. J. Mukherjee … for the petitioner in WPA 21545 of 2022
Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arunabho Ghosh, Mr. Pushpal Chakraborty, Mr. Victor Chatterjee … for the petitioner in WPA 21492 of 2022
Mr. Phiroz Edulji, Mr. S. Nag, Mr. S. Das … for the petitioner in WPA 21497 of 2022
Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Nag, Mr. S. Das … for the petitioner in WPA 21636 of 2022
Mr. Phoroz Edulji, Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay … for the petitioner in WPA 21578 of 2022
Appellant / assessee submissions
Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate opposing these
shall be served upon the learned counsel appearing
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
The result is recorded as Operative order controls. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with income-tax search of female taxpayer using crpf and cctv issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Tribunal |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Ashish Chatterjee Vs Union of India & Ors?
Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns.
Which facts matter most?
Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.N. Nag, Mr. J. Mukherjee … for the petitioner in WPA 21545 of 2022
What did the Court / Tribunal to be verified decide?
Operative order controls
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Income-tax search of female taxpayer using CRPF and CCTV issues: legality, safeguards and dignity/privacy concerns - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
- SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
- PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored
- ITO 32(2)(3) VS MAYUR R KAMDAR - Dismissed
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.