<?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>1941 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277028</link>
    <description>Judicial concurrence is recorded on an income-tax dispute involving Tatem Steam Navigation Co and the Inland Revenue Commissioners. One appellate judge agreed with the judgments of two other judges and with the first-instance reasoning, describing that reasoning as completely accurate. Another appellate judge likewise agreed in full. No independent reasoning, statutory interpretation, factual findings, or operative tax consequence is set out beyond those concurring observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:08:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1941 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277028</link>
      <description>Judicial concurrence is recorded on an income-tax dispute involving Tatem Steam Navigation Co and the Inland Revenue Commissioners. One appellate judge agreed with the judgments of two other judges and with the first-instance reasoning, describing that reasoning as completely accurate. Another appellate judge likewise agreed in full. No independent reasoning, statutory interpretation, factual findings, or operative tax consequence is set out beyond those concurring observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>