<?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>1998 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15915</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Surtax Act was upheld where an audit note merely drew attention to the omission of rule 4 of the Second Schedule from the original capital-base computation and thereby exposed underassessment. Tax credit certificates under section 280ZB of the Income-tax Act were treated as not forming part of income merely because they were exempt, so their exclusion required proper consideration in surtax assessment. The Court distinguished an audit note supplying information on a matter escaped from the officer&#039;s notice from an audit opinion on law, and treated the former as valid information for reopening. Jurisdiction to initiate reassessment was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:09:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15915</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Surtax Act was upheld where an audit note merely drew attention to the omission of rule 4 of the Second Schedule from the original capital-base computation and thereby exposed underassessment. Tax credit certificates under section 280ZB of the Income-tax Act were treated as not forming part of income merely because they were exempt, so their exclusion required proper consideration in surtax assessment. The Court distinguished an audit note supplying information on a matter escaped from the officer&#039;s notice from an audit opinion on law, and treated the former as valid information for reopening. Jurisdiction to initiate reassessment was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>