https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6399 For the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, only a finding necessary for disposal of the appeal and relief in the relevant assessment year qualifies; an incidental observation does not. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remark that the business had been gifted earlier was incidental and did not amount to a qualifying finding. The proviso also protects only directions within the statutory powers corresponding to Section 31(3)(b), (c), (e) or Section 31(4); a direction to assess income in the hands of the respective persons was outside those limits and did not attract the proviso. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6399 For the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, only a finding necessary for disposal of the appeal and relief in the relevant assessment year qualifies; an incidental observation does not. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remark that the business had been gifted earlier was incidental and did not amount to a qualifying finding. The proviso also protects only directions within the statutory powers corresponding to Section 31(3)(b), (c), (e) or Section 31(4); a direction to assess income in the hands of the respective persons was outside those limits and did not attract the proviso. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6399