<?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>1964 (3) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49398</link>
    <description>Recovery proceedings founded on an original notice of demand cannot continue unchanged after an appellate order reduces the assessment and supersedes the demand. The legal scheme treats the notice of demand as the foundation of recovery, so default must be tested against the amount lawfully payable under the modified assessment or appellate order. Where the original demand no longer reflects the liability, recovery must proceed on the revised demand basis rather than on the superseded notice. The dissent considered that the original default could survive with adjustment of the recoverable amount, but the majority view prevailed and relief was granted against the existing recovery proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49398</link>
      <description>Recovery proceedings founded on an original notice of demand cannot continue unchanged after an appellate order reduces the assessment and supersedes the demand. The legal scheme treats the notice of demand as the foundation of recovery, so default must be tested against the amount lawfully payable under the modified assessment or appellate order. Where the original demand no longer reflects the liability, recovery must proceed on the revised demand basis rather than on the superseded notice. The dissent considered that the original default could survive with adjustment of the recoverable amount, but the majority view prevailed and relief was granted against the existing recovery proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>