<?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>1975 (10) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39059</link>
    <description>A rectification affecting a partner&#039;s share income was treated as a valid correction where the statute deemed inclusion or adjustment of that share income, on assessment of the firm, to be a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The challenge to demand notices therefore failed because the statutory basis for rectification was satisfied. The absence of formal notice under the proviso to section 35(1) did not invalidate the enhanced demand where the assessee had knowledge of the proceedings, participated in them, and had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. On that footing, the impugned demand notices were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:41:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39059</link>
      <description>A rectification affecting a partner&#039;s share income was treated as a valid correction where the statute deemed inclusion or adjustment of that share income, on assessment of the firm, to be a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The challenge to demand notices therefore failed because the statutory basis for rectification was satisfied. The absence of formal notice under the proviso to section 35(1) did not invalidate the enhanced demand where the assessee had knowledge of the proceedings, participated in them, and had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. On that footing, the impugned demand notices were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>