https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263724 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging notices issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's lack of confirmed rights over the properties and doubts about bonafide intentions in invoking equity jurisdiction led to the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized the importance of established rights in property disputes and concluded that discretionary jurisdiction should not favor the petitioner due to uncertainties regarding ownership. en-us Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263724 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging notices issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's lack of confirmed rights over the properties and doubts about bonafide intentions in invoking equity jurisdiction led to the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized the importance of established rights in property disputes and concluded that discretionary jurisdiction should not favor the petitioner due to uncertainties regarding ownership. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263724