<?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>1966 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7318</link>
    <description>Failure to comply with a notice to produce accounts attracted section 23(4), enabling best judgment assessment and refusal to renew a firm&#039;s registration under section 26A. The statutory scheme distinguished cancellation of an already granted registration from refusal to register or renew it: the proviso to section 23(4) required notice for cancellation, but did not impose a separate prior notice requirement for refusal of renewal. On the facts described, the authorities treated the assessee&#039;s non-compliance as sufficient ground to refuse renewal, and no prejudice from lack of further opportunity was shown. The refusal to renew registration was therefore treated as lawful and valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7318</link>
      <description>Failure to comply with a notice to produce accounts attracted section 23(4), enabling best judgment assessment and refusal to renew a firm&#039;s registration under section 26A. The statutory scheme distinguished cancellation of an already granted registration from refusal to register or renew it: the proviso to section 23(4) required notice for cancellation, but did not impose a separate prior notice requirement for refusal of renewal. On the facts described, the authorities treated the assessee&#039;s non-compliance as sufficient ground to refuse renewal, and no prejudice from lack of further opportunity was shown. The refusal to renew registration was therefore treated as lawful and valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>