Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC dismissed the petition challenging attachment by Respondent-3 (Tax Recovery Officer), upholding the impugned order. Applying s.281 and the Second Schedule provisions, the court held that any transfer of assets during pendency or after completion of assessment proceedings, before service of notice under Rule 2, is void against the Revenue; intention to defraud is not required under the amended statutory regime. The petitioner's purchase post-initiation of proceedings against Respondent-4 cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser in summary Article 226 proceedings; factual determination requires a civil suit. Given the transfer occurred after notice and in the context of assessment, the HC found no reason to interfere with the writ court's conclusion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
