https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245940 The court held that the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) lacked the authority to unilaterally declare transactions void under section 281 without a civil suit. Emphasizing the requirement for both parties to transact without notice for a transfer to be valid, the judgment referenced legal precedents such as T.R.O. v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade and Ms. Ruchi Mehta v. UOI to support the petitioners' arguments. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, invalidating the TRO's order and highlighting the necessity of civil suits for voiding transactions under section 281. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2014 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245940 The court held that the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) lacked the authority to unilaterally declare transactions void under section 281 without a civil suit. Emphasizing the requirement for both parties to transact without notice for a transfer to be valid, the judgment referenced legal precedents such as T.R.O. v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade and Ms. Ruchi Mehta v. UOI to support the petitioners' arguments. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, invalidating the TRO's order and highlighting the necessity of civil suits for voiding transactions under section 281. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245940