https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449964 Under the amended Section 281 and Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, a transfer inconsistent with tax recovery provisions could not defeat the Revenue's attachment, so the sale deed was not treated as overriding the department's claim and the attachment was sustained. Questions of title and competing proprietary rights in execution proceedings were not finally resolved in the writ petition, and the petitioner was relegated to the civil court remedy contemplated by Rule 11(6) to establish any claimed right. The writ petition therefore failed and the impugned order was upheld. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449964 Under the amended Section 281 and Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, a transfer inconsistent with tax recovery provisions could not defeat the Revenue's attachment, so the sale deed was not treated as overriding the department's claim and the attachment was sustained. Questions of title and competing proprietary rights in execution proceedings were not finally resolved in the writ petition, and the petitioner was relegated to the civil court remedy contemplated by Rule 11(6) to establish any claimed right. The writ petition therefore failed and the impugned order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449964