https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36303 The court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) cannot recover tax under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act without obtaining leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act after a winding-up order. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act is a condition precedent for tax recovery. Section 537(2) of the Companies Act does not override the need for leave under Section 446. Section 178 of the Income Tax Act does not alter the priority of debts under Section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing compliance with the Companies Act for tax recovery from a company in liquidation. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36303 The court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) cannot recover tax under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act without obtaining leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act after a winding-up order. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act is a condition precedent for tax recovery. Section 537(2) of the Companies Act does not override the need for leave under Section 446. Section 178 of the Income Tax Act does not alter the priority of debts under Section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing compliance with the Companies Act for tax recovery from a company in liquidation. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36303