Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
