<?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>1974 (3) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36151</link>
    <description>The court held that the conditions for issuing the notice under Section 148 were met. The Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction based on the available materials, including Sewlal Jain&#039;s confession and findings from a subsequent assessment year. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous judgment. The application under Article 226 was dismissed, with no costs ordered, and the order&#039;s operation was stayed for four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:14:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (3) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36151</link>
      <description>The court held that the conditions for issuing the notice under Section 148 were met. The Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction based on the available materials, including Sewlal Jain&#039;s confession and findings from a subsequent assessment year. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous judgment. The application under Article 226 was dismissed, with no costs ordered, and the order&#039;s operation was stayed for four weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>