<?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>1995 (11) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18198</link>
    <description>Retrospective validating legislation may cure defects identified by the Court where the Legislature has competence over the subject, and it may neutralise the basis of earlier invalidity through proper amendments. The note also states that limitation for assessment or reassessment is part of the tax machinery and may be revived by express enactment, including after expiry of the earlier period. Coffee back-pool payments received after partition are treated as income of the erstwhile HUF, so assessment in the hands of the correct taxable entity does not amount to impermissible double taxation. Once the validating amendments removed the earlier defect, fresh proceedings under section 30(5) read with section 18(2) were not required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:10:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18198</link>
      <description>Retrospective validating legislation may cure defects identified by the Court where the Legislature has competence over the subject, and it may neutralise the basis of earlier invalidity through proper amendments. The note also states that limitation for assessment or reassessment is part of the tax machinery and may be revived by express enactment, including after expiry of the earlier period. Coffee back-pool payments received after partition are treated as income of the erstwhile HUF, so assessment in the hands of the correct taxable entity does not amount to impermissible double taxation. Once the validating amendments removed the earlier defect, fresh proceedings under section 30(5) read with section 18(2) were not required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>