<?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>1962 (8) TMI 104 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199568</link>
    <description>A non-resident shipping company&#039;s freight income was assessed shipment-wise on a rough percentage basis under the special shipping provisions, and that treatment was held to fall within section 44B rather than the general assessment route. The fact that freight agents handled payment and practical compliance for port-clearance convenience did not change the character of the assessment or displace the non-resident principal as the person chargeable. Because the assessments were treated as valid section 44B assessments, the subsequent refund application had to comply with section 44C, and it was held to be time-barred; the refund was not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:55:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 104 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199568</link>
      <description>A non-resident shipping company&#039;s freight income was assessed shipment-wise on a rough percentage basis under the special shipping provisions, and that treatment was held to fall within section 44B rather than the general assessment route. The fact that freight agents handled payment and practical compliance for port-clearance convenience did not change the character of the assessment or displace the non-resident principal as the person chargeable. Because the assessments were treated as valid section 44B assessments, the subsequent refund application had to comply with section 44C, and it was held to be time-barred; the refund was not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>