sought
to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even
in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in
execution. It is already held that it is the Controller under the Act that
has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant
Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd,Chandigarh vs Pcit- Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh on 16 April, 2025
आयकर
Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd,Chandigarh vs Pcit Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh on 16 April, 2025
आयकर
nullity, and that its or relied upon, even at the stage of
execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of
jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the
11
Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order
ejectment
sought to be enforced
or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral
proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in execution. It is
already held that it is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive
jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant
sought to be enforced or relied upon,
even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.
A defect of jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the Controller
under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a
tenant
sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the
stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect ... appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the
Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order
ejectment of a tenant
sought to be
enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A
defect of jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the Controller
under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant
sought to be enforced
or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral
proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether ... appellant in execution. It is
already held that it is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive
jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant
apital gains, from execution of JDA, havi ng
not bee n decl ared . Before t he L d. AO, the assess ee f iled
objectio ... unregistered agreement. However, the Ld.
AO did n ot agree. He r ejecte d the contention s of the assess ee on
the validity
