https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5065 No agreement to pay excess profits tax was proved, as the evidence disclosed no writing or other material supporting such liability and the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. No estoppel arose against the assessee because the challans had the excess profits tax heads scored out, and section 111 of the Cochin Income-tax Act did not bar a suit that challenged an alleged appropriation of payments and asserted liability outside any assessment order. The demand notices also could not stand even for the reduced amount, because the assessment liability had been indirectly revised without authority of law. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5065 No agreement to pay excess profits tax was proved, as the evidence disclosed no writing or other material supporting such liability and the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. No estoppel arose against the assessee because the challans had the excess profits tax heads scored out, and section 111 of the Cochin Income-tax Act did not bar a suit that challenged an alleged appropriation of payments and asserted liability outside any assessment order. The demand notices also could not stand even for the reduced amount, because the assessment liability had been indirectly revised without authority of law. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5065