<?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>1991 (2) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21811</link>
    <description>On remand for fresh disposal, the authority may examine all relevant questions of fact and law unless the remand order expressly limits the enquiry. A plea that capital gains did not accrue in the relevant accounting year was not merely collateral, but a jurisdictional objection going to the basis of revision under section 263, and had to be considered. The Tribunal was also required to adjudicate that jurisdictional contention instead of declining it on a technical ground, because its decision could determine whether the revisional order could stand. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered on the jurisdictional issues arising from the alleged accrual of capital gains.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:57:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21811</link>
      <description>On remand for fresh disposal, the authority may examine all relevant questions of fact and law unless the remand order expressly limits the enquiry. A plea that capital gains did not accrue in the relevant accounting year was not merely collateral, but a jurisdictional objection going to the basis of revision under section 263, and had to be considered. The Tribunal was also required to adjudicate that jurisdictional contention instead of declining it on a technical ground, because its decision could determine whether the revisional order could stand. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered on the jurisdictional issues arising from the alleged accrual of capital gains.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>