https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184656 An Income-tax Officer at the head office could require a return covering all branches, and Section 64(4) did not curtail that authority. A return knowingly confined to only part of the assessee's total income was treated as no compliance with the notice under Section 22(2), so Section 23(4) applied rather than Section 23(2), which was limited to a bona fide but incorrect or incomplete return. The time allowed for compliance was found adequate, and the earlier branch-wise return practice did not require continuation. The reference application was rejected, with the Revenue succeeding on the substantive issues. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 1932 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:42:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184656 An Income-tax Officer at the head office could require a return covering all branches, and Section 64(4) did not curtail that authority. A return knowingly confined to only part of the assessee's total income was treated as no compliance with the notice under Section 22(2), so Section 23(4) applied rather than Section 23(2), which was limited to a bona fide but incorrect or incomplete return. The time allowed for compliance was found adequate, and the earlier branch-wise return practice did not require continuation. The reference application was rejected, with the Revenue succeeding on the substantive issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Oct 1932 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184656