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: Whether the Tax Recovery Officer could invoke section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Special Court to claim priority over sale proceeds realized in execution of decrees relating to property attached under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.
Analysis: The Special Court's jurisdiction under section 9A is confined to matters or claims relating to property standing attached under section 3(3) of the Special Court Act, namely, property of a notified person. The money sought to be reached by the Income-tax Department arose from sale of property of M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd., which was not a notified person. The attached property and its distribution had to be dealt with under sections 3, 11 and 13 of the Special Court Act, and the Act gives overriding effect to its scheme over inconsistent provisions of other laws. Since the applications were directed against a third party's property and not against property of the notified person, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the request under section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Conclusion: The intervention applications were not maintainable before the Special Court and were rightly rejected.
TaxTMI 
