https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39731 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that Section 166 of the Income-tax Act does not confer an option on the Income-tax Officer to choose between assessing the non-resident firm or its agent; both can be assessed and taxed simultaneously. The court did not address the contention that Section 166 violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it was not pressed. Additionally, the failure to take action under Section 174 against the non-resident firm does not relieve the petitioner of its tax obligations. The writ petitions were dismissed with costs, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250. en-us Mon, 11 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:08:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39731 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that Section 166 of the Income-tax Act does not confer an option on the Income-tax Officer to choose between assessing the non-resident firm or its agent; both can be assessed and taxed simultaneously. The court did not address the contention that Section 166 violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it was not pressed. Additionally, the failure to take action under Section 174 against the non-resident firm does not relieve the petitioner of its tax obligations. The writ petitions were dismissed with costs, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39731