Array
(
[0] => ..... the indian income-tax act had expired. therefore, the two rulings are not authority for the view presented by sri rama rao.13. on the other hand, there are two decisions of ..... the re-assessment made after two years next succeeding the assessment year. the learned judges ruled that it could not, because the assessment had become final before the amendment and the amended rule was not retrospective. it was not laid down that the assessment had become final when it was made. it is clear from a reading of the judgment ..... the period prescribed by the unamended rule.12. similarly, it was held in lakshminarayana chetty v. additional income-tax officer [1956] 20 i.t.r. 419, that the amendment would not apply to a case where the assessment had become final and the assessment could be said to have become final after the period fixed under section 35 of .....
)
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-19-1961
Reported in : [1962]13STC26(AP)
..... the indian income-tax act had expired. therefore, the two rulings are not authority for the view presented by sri rama rao.13. on the other hand, there are two decisions of ..... the re-assessment made after two years next succeeding the assessment year. the learned judges ruled that it could not, because the assessment had become final before the amendment and the amended rule was not retrospective. it was not laid down that the assessment had become final when it was made. it is clear from a reading of the judgment ..... the period prescribed by the unamended rule.12. similarly, it was held in lakshminarayana chetty v. additional income-tax officer [1956] 20 i.t.r. 419, that the amendment would not apply to a case where the assessment had become final and the assessment could be said to have become final after the period fixed under section 35 of .....
Tag this Judgment!