https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276675 Where the true constitution of the taxable entity is disputed, Section 34 reopening may proceed if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe income has escaped assessment, and writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily stop the enquiry before facts are investigated in assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the challenge to notices under Section 34 and Rule 6-B raised factual questions about whether the business was a genuine firm or an association of persons, whether notice to all persons believed to constitute the association was sufficient, and whether absence of a prior assessment or the entity's later existence defeated action. The notices were therefore not liable to be quashed, and the objections to reopening and registration proceedings were rejected. en-us Mon, 09 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:45:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276675 Where the true constitution of the taxable entity is disputed, Section 34 reopening may proceed if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe income has escaped assessment, and writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily stop the enquiry before facts are investigated in assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the challenge to notices under Section 34 and Rule 6-B raised factual questions about whether the business was a genuine firm or an association of persons, whether notice to all persons believed to constitute the association was sufficient, and whether absence of a prior assessment or the entity's later existence defeated action. The notices were therefore not liable to be quashed, and the objections to reopening and registration proceedings were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276675