Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
