https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183597 Under the amended section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the word "issue" in the proviso was construed as distinct from "serve" in the substantive provision. The omission of the earlier words "within eight years" from the operative part was treated as significant, and the proviso was read harmoniously with the main provision, which allowed service at any time in cases falling under clause (a). The Court rejected the argument that "issue" must be equated with "serve" and held that a notice was not invalid merely because it was served after eight years. The expression "year" in the proviso was held to mean the assessment year, not the accounting year. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:35:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183597 Under the amended section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the word "issue" in the proviso was construed as distinct from "serve" in the substantive provision. The omission of the earlier words "within eight years" from the operative part was treated as significant, and the proviso was read harmoniously with the main provision, which allowed service at any time in cases falling under clause (a). The Court rejected the argument that "issue" must be equated with "serve" and held that a notice was not invalid merely because it was served after eight years. The expression "year" in the proviso was held to mean the assessment year, not the accounting year. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183597