<?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 (6) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7681</link>
    <description>Recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961 is discussed in the context of assessments and demands originally made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The text states that a fresh notice of demand under section 156 of the 1961 Act was unnecessary where valid default had already arisen under the earlier notice, and that the transitional saving provision allowed recovery of sums payable under the repealed Act. It further notes that recovery could continue through a Tax Recovery Officer with concurrent jurisdiction, even if appointed after the certificates were forwarded. The limitation objection was not sustained, and the writ petitions are described as having failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (6) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7681</link>
      <description>Recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961 is discussed in the context of assessments and demands originally made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The text states that a fresh notice of demand under section 156 of the 1961 Act was unnecessary where valid default had already arisen under the earlier notice, and that the transitional saving provision allowed recovery of sums payable under the repealed Act. It further notes that recovery could continue through a Tax Recovery Officer with concurrent jurisdiction, even if appointed after the certificates were forwarded. The limitation objection was not sustained, and the writ petitions are described as having failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>