1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court clarifies successor's rights in tax recovery process under Income-tax Act</h1> The High Court of Kerala addressed jurisdiction issues and the interpretation of section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case involving ... Effect Of Change Of Law On Recovery Of Tax, Succession Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in the order.2. Interpretation of section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Recording a finding by the Income-tax Officer regarding the recovery of tax from the predecessor.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Kerala addressed various issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The questions referred to the court involved the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in the order, the interpretation of section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the necessity of recording a finding regarding the recovery of tax from the predecessor. The court noted that the relevant documents related to the assessment were not available before them, but it was understood that an assessment was made on the predecessor under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent based on this assessment.The court highlighted the provisions of section 26(2) of the old Act and section 297(2)(j) of the present Act, emphasizing the continuity in recovery mechanisms for assessments made under the repealed Act. The court pointed out the differences between the old and new Acts regarding the necessity of the Income-tax Officer recording a finding before initiating recovery from the successor. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that recovery under the new Act required prior action under the old Act or that the successor should be heard before recording a finding of non-recovery from the predecessor.The court clarified that the successor does not have the right to be heard before the finding is recorded, as the only requirement is to provide notice before proceeding against the successor. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's assertion that a finding without prior notice to the assessee was invalid. The court emphasized that the absence of relevant documents, including the assessment order, prevented them from providing specific answers to the questions raised. Ultimately, the court directed the parties to bear their respective costs and forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
