<?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 (1) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276786</link>
    <description>After dissolution of an association of persons, pre-dissolution income had to be assessed on the persons who were members at the time of dissolution, jointly and severally, and not on the dissolved association as a unit. A valid assessment under section 23(4) also required service of notice under section 22 as a condition precedent. Where proper notices were not served on a member, the assessment could not bind that person. The article distinguishes contrary excess profits tax provisions because they materially differed from section 44 as it then stood, and concludes that the assessment order was bad in law and not enforceable against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2018 12:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (1) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276786</link>
      <description>After dissolution of an association of persons, pre-dissolution income had to be assessed on the persons who were members at the time of dissolution, jointly and severally, and not on the dissolved association as a unit. A valid assessment under section 23(4) also required service of notice under section 22 as a condition precedent. Where proper notices were not served on a member, the assessment could not bind that person. The article distinguishes contrary excess profits tax provisions because they materially differed from section 44 as it then stood, and concludes that the assessment order was bad in law and not enforceable against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>