<?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>1986 (5) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26081</link>
    <description>Rectification proceedings arising from an assessment originally made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly be taken under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the fresh assessment and rectification order were passed after the 1961 Act came into force. Applying section 297 as construed in earlier authority, the High Court held that continuation of pending proceedings did not require the Income-tax Officer to act only under the repealed Act. The rectification order was therefore within jurisdiction and was an appealable order. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal had not been raised before the first appellate authority and had no practical significance once the appeal was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:13:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26081</link>
      <description>Rectification proceedings arising from an assessment originally made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly be taken under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the fresh assessment and rectification order were passed after the 1961 Act came into force. Applying section 297 as construed in earlier authority, the High Court held that continuation of pending proceedings did not require the Income-tax Officer to act only under the repealed Act. The rectification order was therefore within jurisdiction and was an appealable order. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal had not been raised before the first appellate authority and had no practical significance once the appeal was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>