<?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>1998 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15695</link>
    <description>A third party can be proceeded against under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 only if it holds money due to, or property belonging to, the assessee or accountable person. The provision allows objection where no such sum is due or held on the assessee&#039;s account, and Order XXI rule 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure likewise restricts attachment of partnership property. On the stated facts, the partnership firm was not shown to hold the deceased&#039;s estate or any money for the accountable persons, so the estate duty liability remained with those persons and not the firm. The demand notice and recovery steps against the firm were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15695</link>
      <description>A third party can be proceeded against under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 only if it holds money due to, or property belonging to, the assessee or accountable person. The provision allows objection where no such sum is due or held on the assessee&#039;s account, and Order XXI rule 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure likewise restricts attachment of partnership property. On the stated facts, the partnership firm was not shown to hold the deceased&#039;s estate or any money for the accountable persons, so the estate duty liability remained with those persons and not the firm. The demand notice and recovery steps against the firm were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>