<?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>1963 (3) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186529</link>
    <description>Section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act treats omission or incorrect inclusion of a partner&#039;s share income, discovered on the firm&#039;s assessment or reassessment, as a mistake apparent from the record and permits rectification of the partner&#039;s individual assessment. The rectification was upheld as within jurisdiction because the firm had been assessed on the footing that the assessee was a partner, and the final firm assessment could be reflected in his individual case. Prior notice was not required, since the rectification reduced tax liability and did not enhance the assessment or reduce a refund. The challenge to inclusion of the share income therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:30:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (3) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186529</link>
      <description>Section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act treats omission or incorrect inclusion of a partner&#039;s share income, discovered on the firm&#039;s assessment or reassessment, as a mistake apparent from the record and permits rectification of the partner&#039;s individual assessment. The rectification was upheld as within jurisdiction because the firm had been assessed on the footing that the assessee was a partner, and the final firm assessment could be reflected in his individual case. Prior notice was not required, since the rectification reduced tax liability and did not enhance the assessment or reduce a refund. The challenge to inclusion of the share income therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>