<?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 (2) TMI 53 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20382</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to change an assessee&#039;s status from a registered firm to an unregistered firm. The renewal of registration under rule 6 was already in force, the firm&#039;s genuineness and partners&#039; shares were undisputed, and the only defect alleged concerned the signature on the renewal application. Treating that defect as an apparent mistake would amount to a change of opinion rather than valid rectification. The High Court therefore held that the officer had no jurisdiction to alter the registration status on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:58:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 53 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20382</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to change an assessee&#039;s status from a registered firm to an unregistered firm. The renewal of registration under rule 6 was already in force, the firm&#039;s genuineness and partners&#039; shares were undisputed, and the only defect alleged concerned the signature on the renewal application. Treating that defect as an apparent mistake would amount to a change of opinion rather than valid rectification. The High Court therefore held that the officer had no jurisdiction to alter the registration status on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>