<?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>1965 (8) TMI 2 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6621</link>
    <description>Remuneration received by joint managing directors with wide powers of general management, control, appointment, dismissal, contracting, borrowing and delegation was treated as income from business, not salary, because their office was managerial in character and they acted as agents rather than servants. Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was also held invalid because the assessees had disclosed the primary material facts, including the articles of association and commission arrangement, and the Income-tax Officer already knew and considered those facts in the original assessments. The proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction, and the references were decided for the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 2 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6621</link>
      <description>Remuneration received by joint managing directors with wide powers of general management, control, appointment, dismissal, contracting, borrowing and delegation was treated as income from business, not salary, because their office was managerial in character and they acted as agents rather than servants. Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was also held invalid because the assessees had disclosed the primary material facts, including the articles of association and commission arrangement, and the Income-tax Officer already knew and considered those facts in the original assessments. The proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction, and the references were decided for the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>