<?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>1968 (7) TMI 3 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7321</link>
    <description>An order directing payment of additional super-tax under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was held outside the limitation period applicable to assessment orders under section 34(3), so the limitation objection failed. The Finance Act, 1956 amendment to section 23A was also held to apply retrospectively to the assessee company for assessment year 1955-56, because the earlier protected period did not cover its accounting year and the later substitution operated from 1 April 1955. The reference was answered mainly in favour of the Revenue, but the matter was remitted for consideration of whether the company&#039;s dividend declaration satisfied the reasonableness requirement under section 23A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 3 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7321</link>
      <description>An order directing payment of additional super-tax under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was held outside the limitation period applicable to assessment orders under section 34(3), so the limitation objection failed. The Finance Act, 1956 amendment to section 23A was also held to apply retrospectively to the assessee company for assessment year 1955-56, because the earlier protected period did not cover its accounting year and the later substitution operated from 1 April 1955. The reference was answered mainly in favour of the Revenue, but the matter was remitted for consideration of whether the company&#039;s dividend declaration satisfied the reasonableness requirement under section 23A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>