<?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>1968 (8) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5097</link>
    <description>A finding necessary for disposal of the appeal for the relevant assessment year can bring reassessment within the statutory exception to limitation under the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The proviso applied where the appellate authority determined that the business belonged to the partnership firm and not to the Hindu undivided family, because that status finding was integral to the appeal and not merely incidental. The firm was also treated as a person intimately connected with the assessment, since returns had been filed in its name and the dispute directly concerned that business income. The reassessment was therefore not barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5097</link>
      <description>A finding necessary for disposal of the appeal for the relevant assessment year can bring reassessment within the statutory exception to limitation under the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The proviso applied where the appellate authority determined that the business belonged to the partnership firm and not to the Hindu undivided family, because that status finding was integral to the appeal and not merely incidental. The firm was also treated as a person intimately connected with the assessment, since returns had been filed in its name and the dispute directly concerned that business income. The reassessment was therefore not barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>