https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277169 The court upheld the jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that even registered firms are considered assessee under Section 23, with tax liability apportioned among partners. It dismissed the argument that only partners are liable under Section 34. The court found Rule 6-B, allowing registration cancellation, valid as it aimed to combat fictitious firms defrauding tax authorities. It clarified that assessing escaped income on unregistered firms under Section 34 was permissible without altering the original assessment under Section 23. The petitions were dismissed, and costs were awarded to respondents in some instances. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:53:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277169 The court upheld the jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that even registered firms are considered assessee under Section 23, with tax liability apportioned among partners. It dismissed the argument that only partners are liable under Section 34. The court found Rule 6-B, allowing registration cancellation, valid as it aimed to combat fictitious firms defrauding tax authorities. It clarified that assessing escaped income on unregistered firms under Section 34 was permissible without altering the original assessment under Section 23. The petitions were dismissed, and costs were awarded to respondents in some instances. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277169