https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37219 The High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision that the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) lacked authority to recover tax from a partner of a dissolved firm not specified in the tax recovery certificate. The court emphasized that the TRO's jurisdiction is limited to the certificate issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and cannot exceed its scope. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that recovery can only be enforced against the assessee named in the certificate, resulting in costs being awarded to the respondent. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:14:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37219 The High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision that the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) lacked authority to recover tax from a partner of a dissolved firm not specified in the tax recovery certificate. The court emphasized that the TRO's jurisdiction is limited to the certificate issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and cannot exceed its scope. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that recovery can only be enforced against the assessee named in the certificate, resulting in costs being awarded to the respondent. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37219