<?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>1969 (7) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39940</link>
    <description>The court held that a notification empowering revenue officials to act as Tax Recovery Officers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect was invalid. It emphasized the need for clear legislative intent and explicit authorization for retrospective actions, concluding that the notification could not confer retrospective powers on the Tahsildar. The court highlighted the distinction between legislative and executive acts, ultimately dismissing the appeals with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39940</link>
      <description>The court held that a notification empowering revenue officials to act as Tax Recovery Officers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect was invalid. It emphasized the need for clear legislative intent and explicit authorization for retrospective actions, concluding that the notification could not confer retrospective powers on the Tahsildar. The court highlighted the distinction between legislative and executive acts, ultimately dismissing the appeals with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>