<?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>1960 (3) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276383</link>
    <description>Certificates for arrears of income-tax issued against a dissolved firm remained valid, because dissolution did not extinguish the firm&#039;s assessed tax liability or render the certificates void merely for being in the firm&#039;s name. However, execution against an ex-partner personally required amendment or substitution of his name as certificate debtor and service of notice upon him in that capacity under the Public Demands Recovery Act. Until that procedural step was taken, the existing certificates could not be enforced against him personally. The result was that the certificates survived, but immediate personal execution against the respondent without amendment was not permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:34:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (3) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276383</link>
      <description>Certificates for arrears of income-tax issued against a dissolved firm remained valid, because dissolution did not extinguish the firm&#039;s assessed tax liability or render the certificates void merely for being in the firm&#039;s name. However, execution against an ex-partner personally required amendment or substitution of his name as certificate debtor and service of notice upon him in that capacity under the Public Demands Recovery Act. Until that procedural step was taken, the existing certificates could not be enforced against him personally. The result was that the certificates survived, but immediate personal execution against the respondent without amendment was not permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>