<?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>Sections 24-A/43 protect bona fide purchasers for value without notice; transfers for adequate consideration upheld</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91819</link>
    <description>HC dismissed the appellants&#039; writ appeals and upheld the rights of anonymous purchasers as bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The Court held that the proviso to Section 24-A/43 protects transfers made for adequate consideration absent notice of pending tax proceedings or demand; clause (ii) (prior permission) was inapplicable. The Revenue failed to plead or adduce material establishing collusion, fraud or intent to defraud, a jurisdictional fact necessary to invoke Sections 24-A/43. Encumbrance certificates showed no antecedent charge in most cases and, where a charge existed, it post-dated the sales. Consequently the purchasers&#039; titles could not be encumbered by the tax demands and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Sections 24-A/43 protect bona fide purchasers for value without notice; transfers for adequate consideration upheld</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91819</link>
      <description>HC dismissed the appellants&#039; writ appeals and upheld the rights of anonymous purchasers as bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The Court held that the proviso to Section 24-A/43 protects transfers made for adequate consideration absent notice of pending tax proceedings or demand; clause (ii) (prior permission) was inapplicable. The Revenue failed to plead or adduce material establishing collusion, fraud or intent to defraud, a jurisdictional fact necessary to invoke Sections 24-A/43. Encumbrance certificates showed no antecedent charge in most cases and, where a charge existed, it post-dated the sales. Consequently the purchasers&#039; titles could not be encumbered by the tax demands and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>