<?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>1950 (5) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291803</link>
    <description>A notification under the Excess Profits Tax Act attached Excess Profits Tax jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer who was for the time being exercising income-tax functions in the relevant case. A valid transfer of the assessee&#039;s income-tax case to another officer therefore automatically carried the corresponding Excess Profits Tax jurisdiction with it, without any fresh special order. The prior completion of the income-tax assessment did not make the officer functus officio, because the statute still allowed further action in the same case. The assessment was accordingly upheld and the jurisdiction of the transferee officer was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (5) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291803</link>
      <description>A notification under the Excess Profits Tax Act attached Excess Profits Tax jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer who was for the time being exercising income-tax functions in the relevant case. A valid transfer of the assessee&#039;s income-tax case to another officer therefore automatically carried the corresponding Excess Profits Tax jurisdiction with it, without any fresh special order. The prior completion of the income-tax assessment did not make the officer functus officio, because the statute still allowed further action in the same case. The assessment was accordingly upheld and the jurisdiction of the transferee officer was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>