<?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 (9) TMI 14 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7054</link>
    <description>Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treats a discontinued or dissolved firm as continuing for assessment and reassessment purposes, so the tax machinery may proceed despite dissolution. Section 63(1) governs notice service, and service on one partner where the notice is issued in the firm&#039;s name is valid; section 63(2) is not an exhaustive or mandatory restriction on that mode of service. On that basis, reassessment against the dissolved firm was upheld as lawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 14 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7054</link>
      <description>Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treats a discontinued or dissolved firm as continuing for assessment and reassessment purposes, so the tax machinery may proceed despite dissolution. Section 63(1) governs notice service, and service on one partner where the notice is issued in the firm&#039;s name is valid; section 63(2) is not an exhaustive or mandatory restriction on that mode of service. On that basis, reassessment against the dissolved firm was upheld as lawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>