2012 (7) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner.   Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the Respondents.   ORAL JUDGMENT.: [Per S.J. Vazifdar, J.]   1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 25th August, 2009 and 29th December, 2011. 2. The matter pertains to the recovery of the tax dues of the petitioner's wife Smt. Dharmistha S. Shah as a partner of M/s. Pankaj Investments. The respondents contend that the outstandi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment of the flat was rejected. The Tax Recovery Officer confirmed the liability of the petitioner's wife in respect of the said tax dues and held that she was a co-owner of the said flat and that there was no concrete evidence brought on record by the petitioner to prove that he was the sole owner thereof. He, accordingly, held that the attachment of the flat would remain in force till the date of....