security deposit and margin money, issued on February 14, 1994, under section 281B of the Income-tax, Act, 1961, as extended from time to time ... further action taken thereunder.
2. The impugned order under section 281B of the said Act dated February 15, 1994, a copy of which
petitioner's account, a prohibitory order under s. 281B of the I.T. Act was passed by the ITO, Circle II-D (Revenue), Surat ... petitioner or to her account. This power of provisional attachment under s. 281B was exercised by the ITO who is the fourth respondent herein
security deposit and margin money, issued on 14th February, 1994, under s. 281B of the IT Act, 1961, as extended from time to time ... further action taken thereunder.
2. The impugned order under s. 281B of the said Act dt. 15th February, 1994, a copy of which
order of provisional
attachment of various properties of Arnav Savaliya under Section-
281B of the Act.
2.4 The impugned order of provisional attachment reads thus ... 2021-22/
1033162496(1)
Sir/ Madam/ M/s.
Subject: Proceedings under section 281B - Order for provisional
attachment.
Page 3 of 19
Downloaded
petitioners account, a prohibitory order under s. 281B of the I.T. Act was passed by the ITO, Circle II-D (Revenue), Surat, directing ... petitioner or to her account. This power of provisional attachment under s. 281B was exercised by the ITO who is the fourth respondent herein
Valerius Industries vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ
Vinodkumar Murlidhar Chechani ... vs State Of Gujarat on 4 January, 2021
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Enprocon Enterprise Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax on 8 January, 2020
Equivalent
such order, we had
recorded that the order of attachment under Section 281B(2) of the
Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred ... applicant-Department
placed heavy reliance on the third proviso to Section 281B(2) of the
Act, which provides that the period of two years provided
petitioner mentioned in the said order in exercise of
powers under section 281B of the Act. This order
would have life of six months ... petitioner
vehemently contended that the respondent has exercised
powers under section 281B of the Act without the
conditions precedent for exercise of such powers being
