<?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>2001 (3) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40294</link>
    <description>Where the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act adopts the Central computation of tea income, State officers cannot recompute the agricultural-income component already determined under the Income-tax Act and Rules. The statutory scheme, including the relevant provisions of the State Act, showed that the State levy was intended to follow the Central assessment, and the Act did not confer a power to sit in judgment over that computation. A delegated rule cannot enlarge the parent Act or create an inconsistent power; accordingly, the proviso to rule 5, to the extent it authorised recomputation by State officers, was ultra vires. Reassessments based on such recomputation could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 23:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40294</link>
      <description>Where the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act adopts the Central computation of tea income, State officers cannot recompute the agricultural-income component already determined under the Income-tax Act and Rules. The statutory scheme, including the relevant provisions of the State Act, showed that the State levy was intended to follow the Central assessment, and the Act did not confer a power to sit in judgment over that computation. A delegated rule cannot enlarge the parent Act or create an inconsistent power; accordingly, the proviso to rule 5, to the extent it authorised recomputation by State officers, was ultra vires. Reassessments based on such recomputation could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>