TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the protective attachment of the petitioner's immovable property could be questioned; and (ii) whether the Income-tax Department could collect rent from the attached property without an express authority.
Issue (i): whether the protective attachment of the petitioner's immovable property could be questioned.
Analysis: The attachment was made in the nature of a protective measure under the Income-tax Act. In that situation, the challenge to the attachment itself was not sustainable at that stage.
Conclusion: The attachment of the property was upheld and the challenge to it failed.
Issue (ii): whether the Income-tax Department could collect rent from the attached property without an express authority.
Analysis: The Department had no independent authority to collect rent from the property merely because it stood under attachment. Such collection could arise only if the competent authority first determined that the source of investment was made by the petitioner's sister and that the property belonged to her.
Conclusion: The Department was held not entitled to collect rent from the property without such authority.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of restraining rent collection, while the protective attachment itself remained undisturbed.
TaxTMI 
