<?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>1966 (11) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39928</link>
    <description>An order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, was held not to be an assessment order. The provision was treated as a machinery provision because it authorised the Income-tax Officer to determine and impose liability for additional super-tax on undistributed profits, but did not itself create the tax charge. As a result, the limitation period applicable to assessment orders under section 34(3) did not govern orders made under section 23A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (11) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39928</link>
      <description>An order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, was held not to be an assessment order. The provision was treated as a machinery provision because it authorised the Income-tax Officer to determine and impose liability for additional super-tax on undistributed profits, but did not itself create the tax charge. As a result, the limitation period applicable to assessment orders under section 34(3) did not govern orders made under section 23A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>