<?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 (2) TMI 43 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26726</link>
    <description>An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family was treated as distinct from assessment as an individual, so a prior individual assessment did not preclude the assessee&#039;s later claim to HUF status. On that basis, the HUF status issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. For advance tax, assessment in one legally distinct status did not satisfy the requirement of prior regular assessment in the HUF status under section 212(3), so the obligation to file an estimate remained. Because no estimate was filed and no advance tax was paid, interest under section 217 was held leviable, and estoppel did not assist the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 43 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26726</link>
      <description>An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family was treated as distinct from assessment as an individual, so a prior individual assessment did not preclude the assessee&#039;s later claim to HUF status. On that basis, the HUF status issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. For advance tax, assessment in one legally distinct status did not satisfy the requirement of prior regular assessment in the HUF status under section 212(3), so the obligation to file an estimate remained. Because no estimate was filed and no advance tax was paid, interest under section 217 was held leviable, and estoppel did not assist the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>