<?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>1963 (8) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289003</link>
    <description>Rectificatory power under Section 35 requires a subsisting assessment order; once the original assessment was superseded by reassessment under Section 34 and the reassessment was later modified in appeal, the original order no longer existed for rectification. The court held that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to rectify a non-existent order, so the rectification proceedings were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:03:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (8) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289003</link>
      <description>Rectificatory power under Section 35 requires a subsisting assessment order; once the original assessment was superseded by reassessment under Section 34 and the reassessment was later modified in appeal, the original order no longer existed for rectification. The court held that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to rectify a non-existent order, so the rectification proceedings were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>