<?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>1997 (4) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17604</link>
    <description>A dissolved firm could not be assessed to agricultural income-tax on dividends received after dissolution for supplies made earlier, because the firm&#039;s existence for tax purposes cannot be extended beyond dissolution unless the statute creates a clear deeming fiction. Section 27 was confined to income that accrued before dissolution and did not cover post-dissolution receipts in the hands of erstwhile partners. The amended section 26(4), which addresses discontinuance of business, also did not revive the firm&#039;s assessability, and the validating provision could not sustain assessments lacking statutory foundation. Assessment orders were therefore unsustainable to that extent and were quashed in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:44:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17604</link>
      <description>A dissolved firm could not be assessed to agricultural income-tax on dividends received after dissolution for supplies made earlier, because the firm&#039;s existence for tax purposes cannot be extended beyond dissolution unless the statute creates a clear deeming fiction. Section 27 was confined to income that accrued before dissolution and did not cover post-dissolution receipts in the hands of erstwhile partners. The amended section 26(4), which addresses discontinuance of business, also did not revive the firm&#039;s assessability, and the validating provision could not sustain assessments lacking statutory foundation. Assessment orders were therefore unsustainable to that extent and were quashed in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>