<?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>2020 (3) TMI 797 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393653</link>
    <description>The court set aside the attachment orders and garnishee notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the properties in question belonged to a trust and not the individual petitioner. The demand notice dated 20th January 1994 was also interfered with. Recovery proceedings were permitted against the estate of the original petitioner under Section 179(1) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 797 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393653</link>
      <description>The court set aside the attachment orders and garnishee notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the properties in question belonged to a trust and not the individual petitioner. The demand notice dated 20th January 1994 was also interfered with. Recovery proceedings were permitted against the estate of the original petitioner under Section 179(1) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>