<?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>1953 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179219</link>
    <description>A statutory appeal carries full appellate jurisdiction to entertain a new legal ground, unless the statute expressly restricts that power; section 31(2A) was treated as governing discretion to refuse a fresh ground, not as excluding jurisdiction. The text also explains that for proviso 2 to section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the decisive question is whether the earlier business had ceased and a new one had commenced, or whether there was mere continuation. On the facts discussed, cancellation of the earlier managing agency and a fresh appointment showed a new business commenced after 31 March 1936, so the proviso applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:35:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179219</link>
      <description>A statutory appeal carries full appellate jurisdiction to entertain a new legal ground, unless the statute expressly restricts that power; section 31(2A) was treated as governing discretion to refuse a fresh ground, not as excluding jurisdiction. The text also explains that for proviso 2 to section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the decisive question is whether the earlier business had ceased and a new one had commenced, or whether there was mere continuation. On the facts discussed, cancellation of the earlier managing agency and a fresh appointment showed a new business commenced after 31 March 1936, so the proviso applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>