https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325503 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that coercive tax recovery actions, including the attachment of bank accounts and fund withdrawals by the Assessing Officer, were impermissible until the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act was resolved. The court deemed the actions as lacking jurisdiction and unlawful, emphasizing the petitioners' statutory right to have their stay application heard before any coercive measures could be taken. The court quashed the notices to the bankers under Section 226(3), directed the return of withdrawn amounts, and instructed the Assessing Officer to address the pending stay application in compliance with the law. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325503 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that coercive tax recovery actions, including the attachment of bank accounts and fund withdrawals by the Assessing Officer, were impermissible until the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act was resolved. The court deemed the actions as lacking jurisdiction and unlawful, emphasizing the petitioners' statutory right to have their stay application heard before any coercive measures could be taken. The court quashed the notices to the bankers under Section 226(3), directed the return of withdrawn amounts, and instructed the Assessing Officer to address the pending stay application in compliance with the law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325503