<?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>2018 (1) TMI 862 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354126</link>
    <description>Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act bars sale of attached immovable property after three years from the end of the financial year in which the demand order becomes final, excluding any period during which proceedings are stayed. In recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that schedule applies only so far as it can operate consistently with the recovery scheme, with necessary modifications. On the stated facts, the auction was held within the permissible period and no substantiated procedural defect in attachment or sale was shown, so the challenge to the sale failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:25:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 862 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354126</link>
      <description>Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act bars sale of attached immovable property after three years from the end of the financial year in which the demand order becomes final, excluding any period during which proceedings are stayed. In recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that schedule applies only so far as it can operate consistently with the recovery scheme, with necessary modifications. On the stated facts, the auction was held within the permissible period and no substantiated procedural defect in attachment or sale was shown, so the challenge to the sale failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>