<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (11) TMI 39 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10245</link>
    <description>A first charge for agricultural income-tax arrears arises only after a valid demand notice is served under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, and tax becomes payable only on an assessment order or return in accordance with the Act. Because no demand notice was served on the assessee, no statutory charge attached to the property. The petitioner had purchased the property before proceedings against the third respondent began, so the asset was not subject to pending tax recovery when acquired. Section 62(3) did not apply because there was no post-commencement transfer intended to evade tax, and the recovery notices were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 39 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10245</link>
      <description>A first charge for agricultural income-tax arrears arises only after a valid demand notice is served under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, and tax becomes payable only on an assessment order or return in accordance with the Act. Because no demand notice was served on the assessee, no statutory charge attached to the property. The petitioner had purchased the property before proceedings against the third respondent began, so the asset was not subject to pending tax recovery when acquired. Section 62(3) did not apply because there was no post-commencement transfer intended to evade tax, and the recovery notices were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>