https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247932 The court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's order, dismissing the petitioner's objections. It found the TRO's order valid under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, determining the petitioner's liability towards the respondent amidst ongoing litigation. The court emphasized that the TRO's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating on disputed debts and that the enforceability of the debt was not affected by potential future outcomes of the litigation. The court concluded that the admitted liability was adequate for the TRO to proceed, affirming the order and rejecting the petitioner's contentions. en-us Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247932 The court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's order, dismissing the petitioner's objections. It found the TRO's order valid under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, determining the petitioner's liability towards the respondent amidst ongoing litigation. The court emphasized that the TRO's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating on disputed debts and that the enforceability of the debt was not affected by potential future outcomes of the litigation. The court concluded that the admitted liability was adequate for the TRO to proceed, affirming the order and rejecting the petitioner's contentions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247932