<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1955 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161019</link>
    <description>The charging provisions were construed as allowing assessment of both an unregistered firm and its partners, and no express or implied bar required the firm to be assessed first. The surrounding provisions on computation, set-off, grossing up, and the special procedure for firms did not create a condition precedent, though they may cause prejudice in particular cases. Where no specific prejudice is shown, the tax authorities may proceed either against the firm or directly against the partner for the partner&#039;s share of profits. The assessment of the partner before assessment of the firm was therefore treated as lawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:10:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161019</link>
      <description>The charging provisions were construed as allowing assessment of both an unregistered firm and its partners, and no express or implied bar required the firm to be assessed first. The surrounding provisions on computation, set-off, grossing up, and the special procedure for firms did not create a condition precedent, though they may cause prejudice in particular cases. Where no specific prejudice is shown, the tax authorities may proceed either against the firm or directly against the partner for the partner&#039;s share of profits. The assessment of the partner before assessment of the firm was therefore treated as lawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>