<?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>1988 (10) TMI 25 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24463</link>
    <description>The court affirmed that the declarations filed by the firm were defective but curable under section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act. It held that there was no change in the firm&#039;s constitution when the minor partner attained majority, contrary to the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The court directed a reassessment, emphasizing the need to consider if the assessee was given a chance to rectify defects and if any delays were justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:38:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 25 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24463</link>
      <description>The court affirmed that the declarations filed by the firm were defective but curable under section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act. It held that there was no change in the firm&#039;s constitution when the minor partner attained majority, contrary to the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The court directed a reassessment, emphasizing the need to consider if the assessee was given a chance to rectify defects and if any delays were justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>