https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27226 An income-tax clearance certificate under section 230A(1) could not be directed for execution of a lease deed over property already under attachment, because rule 16(2) treated any private transfer of attached property or any interest in it as void while the attachment subsisted. A lease was treated as a transfer for this purpose, so a registered lease deed during attachment could not be given legal effect. The absence of reasons in the refusal letter did not warrant remand, as no prejudice was shown and the applicant was not entitled to the relief on the admitted facts. Section 230A(1) did not assist where the proposed transaction would prejudice recovery. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:58:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27226 An income-tax clearance certificate under section 230A(1) could not be directed for execution of a lease deed over property already under attachment, because rule 16(2) treated any private transfer of attached property or any interest in it as void while the attachment subsisted. A lease was treated as a transfer for this purpose, so a registered lease deed during attachment could not be given legal effect. The absence of reasons in the refusal letter did not warrant remand, as no prejudice was shown and the applicant was not entitled to the relief on the admitted facts. Section 230A(1) did not assist where the proposed transaction would prejudice recovery. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27226