<?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>1960 (2) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181856</link>
    <description>A notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held invalid where the assessee had already filed a return for the relevant assessment year and no assessment on that return had yet been completed. The return could be inaccurate on merits, but it was still a return for that year, so the Income-tax Officer could not validly reopen the matter under section 34 on that basis. As the reassessment was founded entirely on the invalid notice, it could not stand and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:02:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (2) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181856</link>
      <description>A notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held invalid where the assessee had already filed a return for the relevant assessment year and no assessment on that return had yet been completed. The return could be inaccurate on merits, but it was still a return for that year, so the Income-tax Officer could not validly reopen the matter under section 34 on that basis. As the reassessment was founded entirely on the invalid notice, it could not stand and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>