<?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>1990 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22281</link>
    <description>Service of reassessment notices on an interim official receiver appointed in insolvency proceedings for a Hindu undivided family was treated as valid service where the receiver had full powers of administration over the family estate. The court noted that service of notice is a condition precedent to valid reassessment, but the statutory mode of service permitted delivery to the manager or adult member of an HUF, and the receiver was competent to receive notices on the family&#039;s behalf. The notices were also found to have been passed on to the assessee, which filed returns and participated in the proceedings. Reassessment was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:10:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22281</link>
      <description>Service of reassessment notices on an interim official receiver appointed in insolvency proceedings for a Hindu undivided family was treated as valid service where the receiver had full powers of administration over the family estate. The court noted that service of notice is a condition precedent to valid reassessment, but the statutory mode of service permitted delivery to the manager or adult member of an HUF, and the receiver was competent to receive notices on the family&#039;s behalf. The notices were also found to have been passed on to the assessee, which filed returns and participated in the proceedings. Reassessment was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>