<?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>1979 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29254</link>
    <description>Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, recovery proceedings are confined to the assessee named in the recovery certificate and to the modes authorised by the Second Schedule. A partner&#039;s personal property of an unregistered firm cannot be attached or sold where the certificate names only the firm, because the Act does not provide a recovery mechanism equivalent to Order XXI rule 50 CPC for proceeding against partners personally. The availability of an objection under rule 11 of the Second Schedule does not bar writ relief where the challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of the recovery action against the partners. The attachment against the partners was therefore unlawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:41:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29254</link>
      <description>Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, recovery proceedings are confined to the assessee named in the recovery certificate and to the modes authorised by the Second Schedule. A partner&#039;s personal property of an unregistered firm cannot be attached or sold where the certificate names only the firm, because the Act does not provide a recovery mechanism equivalent to Order XXI rule 50 CPC for proceeding against partners personally. The availability of an objection under rule 11 of the Second Schedule does not bar writ relief where the challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of the recovery action against the partners. The attachment against the partners was therefore unlawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>