<?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>1952 (11) TMI 16 - MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192726</link>
    <description>A statutory fiction deeming Part B States to be taxable territories for the relevant previous year brought income accruing in Madhya Bharat during 1949-50 within the charging provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and supported the Income-tax Officer, Indore&#039;s jurisdiction over related assessment matters. Parliament was also held competent to enact retrospective income-tax legislation for pre-26 January 1950 income. The notice under Section 22(2) was treated as valid because it was understood and acted upon, and no specific objection to the place of assessment was raised so Section 64(3) did not invalidate the assessment. A penalty order made in breach of a subsisting judicial restraint was void for want of jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:25:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (11) TMI 16 - MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192726</link>
      <description>A statutory fiction deeming Part B States to be taxable territories for the relevant previous year brought income accruing in Madhya Bharat during 1949-50 within the charging provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and supported the Income-tax Officer, Indore&#039;s jurisdiction over related assessment matters. Parliament was also held competent to enact retrospective income-tax legislation for pre-26 January 1950 income. The notice under Section 22(2) was treated as valid because it was understood and acted upon, and no specific objection to the place of assessment was raised so Section 64(3) did not invalidate the assessment. A penalty order made in breach of a subsisting judicial restraint was void for want of jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>