https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325409 Coercive recovery under the Income Tax Act could not be enforced against a sick industrial company while an inquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was pending, because Section 22 barred such action absent prior consent from the competent board. The demand notices issued under Section 226(3) were treated as recovery steps and could proceed only after the statutory consent requirement was satisfied. The court therefore held the notices could not be implemented without consent, while preserving liberty for the revenue to act in accordance with law once consent was obtained. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325409 Coercive recovery under the Income Tax Act could not be enforced against a sick industrial company while an inquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was pending, because Section 22 barred such action absent prior consent from the competent board. The demand notices issued under Section 226(3) were treated as recovery steps and could proceed only after the statutory consent requirement was satisfied. The court therefore held the notices could not be implemented without consent, while preserving liberty for the revenue to act in accordance with law once consent was obtained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325409