<?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>1977 (7) TMI 43 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38457</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the assessment on the unregistered firm after an earlier assessment on one of the partners was not legal. It concluded that the Income-tax Officer had the option to assess either the firm or its partners individually, but not both. The Court clarified that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not alter this legal position established under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent was awarded costs, and the counsel&#039;s fee was set at Rs. 50.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:18:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (7) TMI 43 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38457</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the assessment on the unregistered firm after an earlier assessment on one of the partners was not legal. It concluded that the Income-tax Officer had the option to assess either the firm or its partners individually, but not both. The Court clarified that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not alter this legal position established under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent was awarded costs, and the counsel&#039;s fee was set at Rs. 50.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>