<?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>1976 (11) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39049</link>
    <description>Service of statutory notice on all legal representatives is a precedent to assessing a deceased assessee&#039;s income under section 24B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Notices sent to minor legal representatives through their mother were invalid because she was not their de jure guardian under the applicable personal law; in the absence of a father, paternal grandfather, or testamentary guardian, proper guardian appointment was required. As valid notice was not served on every legal representative, the defect went to the root of the assessment. Because the assessment was single and indivisible, it could not be upheld against the major heirs while being set aside only for the minors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:08:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39049</link>
      <description>Service of statutory notice on all legal representatives is a precedent to assessing a deceased assessee&#039;s income under section 24B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Notices sent to minor legal representatives through their mother were invalid because she was not their de jure guardian under the applicable personal law; in the absence of a father, paternal grandfather, or testamentary guardian, proper guardian appointment was required. As valid notice was not served on every legal representative, the defect went to the root of the assessment. Because the assessment was single and indivisible, it could not be upheld against the major heirs while being set aside only for the minors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>