https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19012 The court ruled in favor of the respondent Wealth-tax Officer, upholding the legality of assessment notices served for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. It held that the Wealth-tax Officer in Bombay had jurisdiction to proceed with assessments even after the expiration of the specified period under section 17A of the Wealth-tax Act, considering the impact of a Supreme Court order restraining assessment proceedings until valuation was completed. The court emphasized that orders obtained by one partner or a firm benefit all partners in a partnership, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the notices were without jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:29:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19012 The court ruled in favor of the respondent Wealth-tax Officer, upholding the legality of assessment notices served for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. It held that the Wealth-tax Officer in Bombay had jurisdiction to proceed with assessments even after the expiration of the specified period under section 17A of the Wealth-tax Act, considering the impact of a Supreme Court order restraining assessment proceedings until valuation was completed. The court emphasized that orders obtained by one partner or a firm benefit all partners in a partnership, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the notices were without jurisdiction. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19012