<?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>1969 (10) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7541</link>
    <description>Rectification powers could be used to amend assessments so they conformed to the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier legal determination, and the Income-tax Officer was entitled to examine whether establishment expenses included capital expenditure linked to capital recoveries. However, rectification orders that did not disclose how establishment charges were allocated between capital and revenue expenditure were unsustainable, because the factual basis was inadequate and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to furnish particulars before fresh determination. The Court upheld the jurisdiction to rectify, but quashed the cryptic orders and permitted fresh orders on proper materials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (10) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7541</link>
      <description>Rectification powers could be used to amend assessments so they conformed to the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier legal determination, and the Income-tax Officer was entitled to examine whether establishment expenses included capital expenditure linked to capital recoveries. However, rectification orders that did not disclose how establishment charges were allocated between capital and revenue expenditure were unsustainable, because the factual basis was inadequate and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to furnish particulars before fresh determination. The Court upheld the jurisdiction to rectify, but quashed the cryptic orders and permitted fresh orders on proper materials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>