<?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>1978 (3) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28447</link>
    <description>An income-tax assessment made after a company&#039;s dissolution was treated as void because proceedings against a non-existent assessee lacked statutory authority. The transferee-company was not fastened with the transferor-company&#039;s tax demand or penalty since no valid notice of demand or participation in the assessment proceedings was shown against it, and estoppel or fraud could not be invoked without pleading and proof. The civil suit for refund was not barred by section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the recovery action was without jurisdiction and contrary to mandatory procedure. The recovery proceedings were therefore illegal and the refund claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:06:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28447</link>
      <description>An income-tax assessment made after a company&#039;s dissolution was treated as void because proceedings against a non-existent assessee lacked statutory authority. The transferee-company was not fastened with the transferor-company&#039;s tax demand or penalty since no valid notice of demand or participation in the assessment proceedings was shown against it, and estoppel or fraud could not be invoked without pleading and proof. The civil suit for refund was not barred by section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the recovery action was without jurisdiction and contrary to mandatory procedure. The recovery proceedings were therefore illegal and the refund claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>