https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272672 A statutory term defined by the Income-tax Act was held to control its use throughout the enactment, so the recipient company, already assessed as resident and ordinarily resident, could not be treated as non-resident for recovery under section 18(3B). The court also held that the suggested appeal was not an adequate alternative remedy where the statutory scheme required prior payment or deduction before an appeal could be maintained, and the notice disclosed an error of law on the face of the record. The impugned notice and consequential recovery action were quashed, and enforcement was restrained. en-us Fri, 11 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2018 11:34:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272672 A statutory term defined by the Income-tax Act was held to control its use throughout the enactment, so the recipient company, already assessed as resident and ordinarily resident, could not be treated as non-resident for recovery under section 18(3B). The court also held that the suggested appeal was not an adequate alternative remedy where the statutory scheme required prior payment or deduction before an appeal could be maintained, and the notice disclosed an error of law on the face of the record. The impugned notice and consequential recovery action were quashed, and enforcement was restrained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272672