<?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>1965 (4) TMI 131 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276384</link>
    <description>Tax validly assessed and demanded against an unregistered firm remained recoverable after dissolution from the partners, because dissolution did not extinguish the liability and no fresh assessment or fresh demand notice was required on these facts. The Court held that the partners&#039; responsibility arose through partnership law on dissolution, while the Income-tax recovery machinery could be used to realise the existing debt. It further held that the certificate authorities could continue the recovery proceeding against the partners as certificate-debtors, since the Board&#039;s order restored the proceeding and not a void certificate. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:38:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 131 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276384</link>
      <description>Tax validly assessed and demanded against an unregistered firm remained recoverable after dissolution from the partners, because dissolution did not extinguish the liability and no fresh assessment or fresh demand notice was required on these facts. The Court held that the partners&#039; responsibility arose through partnership law on dissolution, while the Income-tax recovery machinery could be used to realise the existing debt. It further held that the certificate authorities could continue the recovery proceeding against the partners as certificate-debtors, since the Board&#039;s order restored the proceeding and not a void certificate. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>