https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25428 The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling against the petitioner's claims regarding rent collection, property attachment, prohibitory order legality, and arrest notice validity. The court found that the Tax Recovery Officer lacked the power to prevent the tenant from paying future rent to the landlord and that the attachment of two properties for a smaller tax due amount was justified under the applicable rule. Additionally, the court emphasized that there was no statutory provision for deeming the Income-tax Department to have collected rent in the given circumstances. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25428 The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling against the petitioner's claims regarding rent collection, property attachment, prohibitory order legality, and arrest notice validity. The court found that the Tax Recovery Officer lacked the power to prevent the tenant from paying future rent to the landlord and that the attachment of two properties for a smaller tax due amount was justified under the applicable rule. Additionally, the court emphasized that there was no statutory provision for deeming the Income-tax Department to have collected rent in the given circumstances. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25428