<?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 (2) TMI 85 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277150</link>
    <description>An unregistered firm was treated as a separate assessable entity for income-tax purposes, so a partner could be regarded as a person not previously assessed for advance-tax liability and interest under section 18A of the Income-tax Act, 1922; the statutory interest was therefore sustained. A separate notice of demand under section 29 was not a precondition for adding interest under section 18A(8) because the liability arose directly under the statute. No waiver of interest could be inferred where the officer lacked waiver power at the relevant time. The omission to charge mandatory interest was an apparent mistake on the record and was capable of rectification under section 35.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 85 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277150</link>
      <description>An unregistered firm was treated as a separate assessable entity for income-tax purposes, so a partner could be regarded as a person not previously assessed for advance-tax liability and interest under section 18A of the Income-tax Act, 1922; the statutory interest was therefore sustained. A separate notice of demand under section 29 was not a precondition for adding interest under section 18A(8) because the liability arose directly under the statute. No waiver of interest could be inferred where the officer lacked waiver power at the relevant time. The omission to charge mandatory interest was an apparent mistake on the record and was capable of rectification under section 35.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>