https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11999 Section 281 of the Income-tax Act was treated as a declaratory recovery provision, so a share transfer made during pending proceedings and found to be part of a tax-avoidance arrangement could be disregarded for recovery purposes, especially where adequate consideration and prior protection under section 178 were not shown. Section 226(5) read with the Third Schedule was also explained as permitting recovery by distraint and sale of movable property, with prohibitory orders over dematerialised shares treated as a form of actual seizure. Clerical error in the authorisation date did not invalidate the action, and notice-based or alternate-remedy objections did not defeat the attachment in the recovery context. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11999 Section 281 of the Income-tax Act was treated as a declaratory recovery provision, so a share transfer made during pending proceedings and found to be part of a tax-avoidance arrangement could be disregarded for recovery purposes, especially where adequate consideration and prior protection under section 178 were not shown. Section 226(5) read with the Third Schedule was also explained as permitting recovery by distraint and sale of movable property, with prohibitory orders over dematerialised shares treated as a form of actual seizure. Clerical error in the authorisation date did not invalidate the action, and notice-based or alternate-remedy objections did not defeat the attachment in the recovery context. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11999