https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271337 The court held that the first respondent failed to comply with Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the full amount was not deposited within the required thirty-day period. Consequently, the application to set aside the auction sale was denied. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's decision was overturned, confirming the sale in favor of the petitioners. A stay was granted for four weeks for the respondents to seek further recourse, with a condition to maintain the property's status quo. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271337 The court held that the first respondent failed to comply with Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the full amount was not deposited within the required thirty-day period. Consequently, the application to set aside the auction sale was denied. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's decision was overturned, confirming the sale in favor of the petitioners. A stay was granted for four weeks for the respondents to seek further recourse, with a condition to maintain the property's status quo. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271337