https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28673 Clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as extended to Delhi under Parliamentary authority, continued to operate because Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act applied only to State Legislature or High Court amendments and did not cover the Delhi extension. The analysis also rejects implied repeal, finding no necessary inconsistency between the provisions. As Rule 10 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act preserves property exempt from attachment under the Code, the exemption for a qualifying main residential house remains available in tax recovery proceedings. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:02:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28673 Clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as extended to Delhi under Parliamentary authority, continued to operate because Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act applied only to State Legislature or High Court amendments and did not cover the Delhi extension. The analysis also rejects implied repeal, finding no necessary inconsistency between the provisions. As Rule 10 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act preserves property exempt from attachment under the Code, the exemption for a qualifying main residential house remains available in tax recovery proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28673