<?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>1985 (8) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26610</link>
    <description>Section 7 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was construed as requiring the Income-tax Officer to consider and adjudicate an assessee&#039;s objections before making a provisional assessment; the power to take objections into account necessarily included the power to accept or reject them, and the provision was not limited to mechanical processing. The Court also held that the provision was not arbitrary or violative of article 14, because it operated within a guided statutory scheme with notice, opportunity to object, provisional assessment, and later adjustment at regular assessment. The writ petitions therefore failed and the provisional assessment regime was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:07:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26610</link>
      <description>Section 7 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was construed as requiring the Income-tax Officer to consider and adjudicate an assessee&#039;s objections before making a provisional assessment; the power to take objections into account necessarily included the power to accept or reject them, and the provision was not limited to mechanical processing. The Court also held that the provision was not arbitrary or violative of article 14, because it operated within a guided statutory scheme with notice, opportunity to object, provisional assessment, and later adjustment at regular assessment. The writ petitions therefore failed and the provisional assessment regime was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>