https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13626 The High Court held that respondent No. 3 exceeded jurisdiction by declaring a property transaction void under section 281 of the Income-tax Act without due process. The court emphasized the necessity of providing affected parties with an opportunity to be heard before such decisions are made. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court ruled that the order lacked jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioners' challenge was successful, allowing the respondents to pursue legal procedures against the property while invalidating the impugned order without imposing costs on the parties. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13626 The High Court held that respondent No. 3 exceeded jurisdiction by declaring a property transaction void under section 281 of the Income-tax Act without due process. The court emphasized the necessity of providing affected parties with an opportunity to be heard before such decisions are made. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court ruled that the order lacked jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioners' challenge was successful, allowing the respondents to pursue legal procedures against the property while invalidating the impugned order without imposing costs on the parties. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13626