<?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>1958 (9) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288448</link>
    <description>For assessment year 1947-48, relief from double taxation was governed by the India and Burma Income Tax Relief Order, 1936, because the right had to be determined by the law in force at the commencement of the year and no contrary statutory direction displaced that position. The later constitutional and legislative changes, including the amended section 49A, did not alter the applicable basis for that year. The claim for relief under the 1936 Order was also not barred by section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the Order was an independent instrument and its prescribed forms did not impose a limitation period. The rejection of the claim on limitation was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (9) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288448</link>
      <description>For assessment year 1947-48, relief from double taxation was governed by the India and Burma Income Tax Relief Order, 1936, because the right had to be determined by the law in force at the commencement of the year and no contrary statutory direction displaced that position. The later constitutional and legislative changes, including the amended section 49A, did not alter the applicable basis for that year. The claim for relief under the 1936 Order was also not barred by section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the Order was an independent instrument and its prescribed forms did not impose a limitation period. The rejection of the claim on limitation was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>