https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166287 In a tax reference under Section 66 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922, the High Court could restate the referred question accurately but could not enlarge the reference, and assumptions made at the mandamus stage did not bind the Commissioner. In assessment under Section 23(3), the Income-tax Officer could reject false or unreliable books, rely on other information, and apply the proviso to Section 13 where the accounts were incapable of yielding true income, provided the assessee was given a fair opportunity to meet the material used. A finding of fact was not vitiated merely because some material was confidential, if admissible evidence independently sustained the conclusion. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:33:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166287 In a tax reference under Section 66 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922, the High Court could restate the referred question accurately but could not enlarge the reference, and assumptions made at the mandamus stage did not bind the Commissioner. In assessment under Section 23(3), the Income-tax Officer could reject false or unreliable books, rely on other information, and apply the proviso to Section 13 where the accounts were incapable of yielding true income, provided the assessee was given a fair opportunity to meet the material used. A finding of fact was not vitiated merely because some material was confidential, if admissible evidence independently sustained the conclusion. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166287