<?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>1994 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19372</link>
    <description>An express and limited Tribunal remand confined the fresh assessment to the specific issue concerning the 40 cents of land and the mosque under construction, and did not authorise reopening matters that had already attained finality. Matters such as domicile and the foreign liability allowance had been concluded by earlier orders and were not carried in further appeal. Any attempt to reopen those concluded matters would fall within section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and therefore attract the limitation regime under section 73A(b). The respondent also failed to produce the alleged notice said to have been issued within time, so no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:02:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19372</link>
      <description>An express and limited Tribunal remand confined the fresh assessment to the specific issue concerning the 40 cents of land and the mosque under construction, and did not authorise reopening matters that had already attained finality. Matters such as domicile and the foreign liability allowance had been concluded by earlier orders and were not carried in further appeal. Any attempt to reopen those concluded matters would fall within section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and therefore attract the limitation regime under section 73A(b). The respondent also failed to produce the alleged notice said to have been issued within time, so no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>