<?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>1945 (1) TMI 15 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168563</link>
    <description>A certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 for recovery of assessed income-tax and penalty was upheld despite objections to filing, form, and description. A statutory filing requirement was satisfied by the certificate being preserved in the office, entered in the register, and produced when needed. No requisition under Section 5 was necessary because the demand was recoverable under Section 4. The addition of descriptive words to the Income-tax Officer&#039;s name did not change the certificate holder&#039;s identity, and omission of the period in the amount column was immaterial because income-tax becomes due on demand, not for a fixed period. The challenge to the certificate&#039;s validity failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1945 (1) TMI 15 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168563</link>
      <description>A certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 for recovery of assessed income-tax and penalty was upheld despite objections to filing, form, and description. A statutory filing requirement was satisfied by the certificate being preserved in the office, entered in the register, and produced when needed. No requisition under Section 5 was necessary because the demand was recoverable under Section 4. The addition of descriptive words to the Income-tax Officer&#039;s name did not change the certificate holder&#039;s identity, and omission of the period in the amount column was immaterial because income-tax becomes due on demand, not for a fixed period. The challenge to the certificate&#039;s validity failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>