https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6756 Reference jurisdiction under section 66 was confined to questions raised before or dealt with by the income-tax authorities, so a new question based on the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 could not be directed to be referred. The former ruler's claim that sovereign status survived the merger was rejected because merger divested sovereign rights, and that asserted status did not exempt personal income or income accruing outside the former State from tax. Interest on Government securities was also taxable because no exemption was shown under the Patiala Income-tax Act. The court declined to enlarge the reference and upheld taxability of the disputed incomes. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6756 Reference jurisdiction under section 66 was confined to questions raised before or dealt with by the income-tax authorities, so a new question based on the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 could not be directed to be referred. The former ruler's claim that sovereign status survived the merger was rejected because merger divested sovereign rights, and that asserted status did not exempt personal income or income accruing outside the former State from tax. Interest on Government securities was also taxable because no exemption was shown under the Patiala Income-tax Act. The court declined to enlarge the reference and upheld taxability of the disputed incomes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6756