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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.