https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28106 The court held that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as no recovery certificate had been issued by the specified date. It was also determined that the ITO improperly used the partnership firm's funds to settle individual partners' tax liabilities, which was deemed impermissible under the law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the notice, and directed the respondents to return the funds to the concerned party, while also awarding costs to the petitioners. en-us Mon, 14 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:59:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28106 The court held that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as no recovery certificate had been issued by the specified date. It was also determined that the ITO improperly used the partnership firm's funds to settle individual partners' tax liabilities, which was deemed impermissible under the law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the notice, and directed the respondents to return the funds to the concerned party, while also awarding costs to the petitioners. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28106