<?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>1955 (12) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49670</link>
    <description>A High Court could issue a writ of prohibition against an authorised official within its territorial jurisdiction when that official exercised independent statutory powers unlawfully, even though the superior Commission was outside the State. The enquiry under the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was confined to the years specifically referred, namely 1942 and 1943, and could not be enlarged beyond that reference. The Act was treated as validly in force and capable of supporting proceedings affecting completed assessments. Section 5(1) was not discriminatory under article 14 because it applied to a distinct class of substantial tax evaders and had a rational nexus with the Act&#039;s object.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (12) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49670</link>
      <description>A High Court could issue a writ of prohibition against an authorised official within its territorial jurisdiction when that official exercised independent statutory powers unlawfully, even though the superior Commission was outside the State. The enquiry under the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was confined to the years specifically referred, namely 1942 and 1943, and could not be enlarged beyond that reference. The Act was treated as validly in force and capable of supporting proceedings affecting completed assessments. Section 5(1) was not discriminatory under article 14 because it applied to a distinct class of substantial tax evaders and had a rational nexus with the Act&#039;s object.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>