https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39415 The court interpreted section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the ownership of money deposited in court. The plaintiff deposited money for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The court held that once the amount was earmarked for payment to the seller, it ceased to be the plaintiff's property. As the plaintiff did not have full control over the deposited amount, it was not subject to income tax recovery. The court allowed the revision petition, ruling the amount did not belong to the plaintiff, and each party should bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:00:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39415 The court interpreted section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the ownership of money deposited in court. The plaintiff deposited money for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The court held that once the amount was earmarked for payment to the seller, it ceased to be the plaintiff's property. As the plaintiff did not have full control over the deposited amount, it was not subject to income tax recovery. The court allowed the revision petition, ruling the amount did not belong to the plaintiff, and each party should bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39415