<?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>2005 (5) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10653</link>
    <description>For income-tax purposes, a purchaser who has paid full consideration and obtained possession in law may be treated as the owner even without a registered conveyance, because the transfer and deeming provisions give legal effect to a completed transaction in substance. On that basis, provisional attachment under section 281B cannot be sustained against property that has already passed to the purchaser in substance, and attachment over such property is without jurisdiction and excessive. The writ challenge was also maintainable because it raised legality and jurisdictional error rather than disputed facts requiring relegation to a civil suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10653</link>
      <description>For income-tax purposes, a purchaser who has paid full consideration and obtained possession in law may be treated as the owner even without a registered conveyance, because the transfer and deeming provisions give legal effect to a completed transaction in substance. On that basis, provisional attachment under section 281B cannot be sustained against property that has already passed to the purchaser in substance, and attachment over such property is without jurisdiction and excessive. The writ challenge was also maintainable because it raised legality and jurisdictional error rather than disputed facts requiring relegation to a civil suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>