https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49667 The Supreme Court held that the term "personally" in the Income-tax Rules excludes a duly authorized agent from signing an application on behalf of a partner under section 26A of the Income-tax Act. The Court upheld that the signature required by the rules must be that of the partner himself, aligning with the precedent that statutory requirements for personal signatures exclude the rule of agency. Additionally, the Court determined that rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules are not ultra vires the rule-making authority, emphasizing that the Indian Income-tax Act is exhaustive and intended to exclude the common law rule of agency. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the validity of the rules requiring personal signatures. en-us Wed, 09 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49667 The Supreme Court held that the term "personally" in the Income-tax Rules excludes a duly authorized agent from signing an application on behalf of a partner under section 26A of the Income-tax Act. The Court upheld that the signature required by the rules must be that of the partner himself, aligning with the precedent that statutory requirements for personal signatures exclude the rule of agency. Additionally, the Court determined that rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules are not ultra vires the rule-making authority, emphasizing that the Indian Income-tax Act is exhaustive and intended to exclude the common law rule of agency. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the validity of the rules requiring personal signatures. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49667