<?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>1957 (4) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276729</link>
    <description>A valid appointment as Additional District Magistrate, made after first vesting the officer with first-class magistrate powers, also conferred status as a certificate officer under the Public Demands Recovery Act. A prior valid notice of demand remained effective after appellate reduction of assessment, so recovery could continue for the reduced amount without a fresh notice. The Income-tax Act permitted simultaneous recourse to sections 46(2) and 46(5A) where the officer recorded special reasons, including delay in certificate recovery. Sections 51 and 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act were not shown to offend Article 14, as the differing appellate routes did not create impermissible discrimination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:45:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (4) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276729</link>
      <description>A valid appointment as Additional District Magistrate, made after first vesting the officer with first-class magistrate powers, also conferred status as a certificate officer under the Public Demands Recovery Act. A prior valid notice of demand remained effective after appellate reduction of assessment, so recovery could continue for the reduced amount without a fresh notice. The Income-tax Act permitted simultaneous recourse to sections 46(2) and 46(5A) where the officer recorded special reasons, including delay in certificate recovery. Sections 51 and 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act were not shown to offend Article 14, as the differing appellate routes did not create impermissible discrimination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>