<?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>1957 (9) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285698</link>
    <description>The Court held that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 received by the assessees was taxable as it constituted an accelerated payment of income remitted to Ahmedabad. It also ruled that the tax paid by beneficiaries should be set off against the trustees&#039; tax liability to prevent double taxation. However, the question regarding the authority of the Income-tax Officer to proceed against trustees when assessments had already been made against beneficiaries was left unanswered as it was not raised by the appropriate party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (9) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285698</link>
      <description>The Court held that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 received by the assessees was taxable as it constituted an accelerated payment of income remitted to Ahmedabad. It also ruled that the tax paid by beneficiaries should be set off against the trustees&#039; tax liability to prevent double taxation. However, the question regarding the authority of the Income-tax Officer to proceed against trustees when assessments had already been made against beneficiaries was left unanswered as it was not raised by the appropriate party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>