<?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>1967 (1) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6951</link>
    <description>A notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be issued while the original assessment proceedings on the return filed under the Income-tax Act, 1922 were still pending, because no escaped income could be said to exist. The reassessment notice was therefore without jurisdiction, and the assessment made under section 144, the consequential demand, and the proposed penalty proceedings founded on non-compliance with that invalid notice were all unsustainable against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6951</link>
      <description>A notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be issued while the original assessment proceedings on the return filed under the Income-tax Act, 1922 were still pending, because no escaped income could be said to exist. The reassessment notice was therefore without jurisdiction, and the assessment made under section 144, the consequential demand, and the proposed penalty proceedings founded on non-compliance with that invalid notice were all unsustainable against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>