https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253619 The court held that the demand notice issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent was valid. The 1st respondent's claim for priority of income tax arrears over other claims was upheld, and the arrangement for direct payment of EMIs to the petitioner was deemed binding. The funds held by the 2nd respondent were directed to be transferred to the 3rd respondent under liquidation. The official liquidator was tasked with managing the disbursement of funds in accordance with the Companies Act's priorities, with a three-month timeline set for completion. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253619 The court held that the demand notice issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent was valid. The 1st respondent's claim for priority of income tax arrears over other claims was upheld, and the arrangement for direct payment of EMIs to the petitioner was deemed binding. The funds held by the 2nd respondent were directed to be transferred to the 3rd respondent under liquidation. The official liquidator was tasked with managing the disbursement of funds in accordance with the Companies Act's priorities, with a three-month timeline set for completion. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253619