<?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>1932 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</link>
    <description>Whether service by registered post is vitiated when the postal acknowledgment is signed by the assessee&#039;s minor son was determined by treating the presumption of service from posting as rebuttable and applying postal delivery rules that a registered article is delivered when received by the addressee or his agent. The court held that a minor may act as an agent between principal and third parties where facts support agency. On the found facts - cohabitation, prior deliveries accepted by the son, near-majority age and ordinary intelligence - the son was an agent and his signature constituted valid acceptance, so the notice under the relevant tax provision was validly served.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</link>
      <description>Whether service by registered post is vitiated when the postal acknowledgment is signed by the assessee&#039;s minor son was determined by treating the presumption of service from posting as rebuttable and applying postal delivery rules that a registered article is delivered when received by the addressee or his agent. The court held that a minor may act as an agent between principal and third parties where facts support agency. On the found facts - cohabitation, prior deliveries accepted by the son, near-majority age and ordinary intelligence - the son was an agent and his signature constituted valid acceptance, so the notice under the relevant tax provision was validly served.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>