Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Palani Gounder (Decd.) And Others vs Income-Tax Revenue Department And ... on 15 March, 1996
and
Others V. Income Tax Revenue Department and others, reported in 1998 (229) ITR
59 (Mad.)
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S.Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal on 11 February, 2011
55. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the third respondent on
the Full Bench judgment in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. V. Hadeeja Ammal
reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 569 is of no use to the third respondent. The issue
arises for consideration before the Full Bench is relating to the sale deed
pursuant to contractual obligations and the Full Bench had no occasion to
consider the effect of statutory attachment and statutory sale as provided under
the EPF Act or any other similar Act.
Kapurchand Shrimal vs Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad & Ors on 14 August, 1968
(v) The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and
Kerala, Chennai, is directed to suitably instruct the Recovery Officers
throughout the region that they can ignore sale or alienation, if any, made by
the defaulter establishment after certificate was issued by the Authorised
Officer, in view of Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act
declares such sale as void and also in view of the settled position of law as
declared in the four judgments referred to above, namely, (I) Division Bench
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kapurchand Shrimal vs Tax Recovery
Officer, Hyderabad, reported in 1967 64 ITR 1 [AP], (II) Judgment of the Apex
Court in Nancy John Lyndon Vs. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury and others reported in
(1987) 4 SCC 78, (III) Judgment of this Court in Palani Gounder (Decd.)
Nancy John Lyndon vs Prabhati Lal Chowdhury & Ors on 19 August, 1987
(v) The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and
Kerala, Chennai, is directed to suitably instruct the Recovery Officers
throughout the region that they can ignore sale or alienation, if any, made by
the defaulter establishment after certificate was issued by the Authorised
Officer, in view of Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act
declares such sale as void and also in view of the settled position of law as
declared in the four judgments referred to above, namely, (I) Division Bench
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kapurchand Shrimal vs Tax Recovery
Officer, Hyderabad, reported in 1967 64 ITR 1 [AP], (II) Judgment of the Apex
Court in Nancy John Lyndon Vs. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury and others reported in
(1987) 4 SCC 78, (III) Judgment of this Court in Palani Gounder (Decd.)
Abdul Jamil & Ors. vs Secretary, Income Tax Department & Ors. on 26 March, 1998
and (IV) Judgment of this Court in Abdul Jamil and 5 Others Vs. The
Secretary, Income-Tax, reported in 1998 (1) CTC 547 and that they can proceed
further to bring the property to sale, etc.,
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010
in W.P.(MD)No.11726 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.8972 of 2012
are closed. As stated above, M.P.(MD)Nos.2 to 6 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.8972 of
2012 are DISMISSED.