<?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>1925 (8) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186595</link>
    <description>Bungalows kept ready for the owner&#039;s occupation, furnished and staffed, were treated as assessable &quot;vacancies&quot; under section 9(1)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because ordinary non-let occupation did not take them outside the charging provision. The court also stated that section 34 permitted reassessment where income had escaped assessment due to an erroneous view on facts or law, and not only where income had been wholly omitted. A prior mistaken treatment of the property as non-assessable did not bar reassessment within the statutory period. The reference was answered against the assessee on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:24:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1925 (8) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186595</link>
      <description>Bungalows kept ready for the owner&#039;s occupation, furnished and staffed, were treated as assessable &quot;vacancies&quot; under section 9(1)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because ordinary non-let occupation did not take them outside the charging provision. The court also stated that section 34 permitted reassessment where income had escaped assessment due to an erroneous view on facts or law, and not only where income had been wholly omitted. A prior mistaken treatment of the property as non-assessable did not bar reassessment within the statutory period. The reference was answered against the assessee on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>