https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171545 A notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was invalid where it allowed less than thirty clear days for filing the return, because the statutory minimum time had to be given and a later extension could not cure the defect. That point therefore raised a referable question of law. A separate issue concerning the legality of the firm's constitution was not required to be referred, because it had not been raised in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and so did not arise out of the appellate order. The reference was confined to the validity of the notice, while the second proposed question was excluded as outside the scope of the order. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171545 A notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was invalid where it allowed less than thirty clear days for filing the return, because the statutory minimum time had to be given and a later extension could not cure the defect. That point therefore raised a referable question of law. A separate issue concerning the legality of the firm's constitution was not required to be referred, because it had not been raised in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and so did not arise out of the appellate order. The reference was confined to the validity of the notice, while the second proposed question was excluded as outside the scope of the order. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Apr 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171545