https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7275 Where the Income-tax Act did not expressly fix the High Court with territorial jurisdiction for a section 66(2) reference application, the Court applied ordinary territorial principles instead. It treated section 66(8) as neutral and held that Tribunal rules could not by themselves confer jurisdiction. Using the assessee's place of business or residence, and the nexus that penalty proceedings are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, jurisdiction was found to lie with the Kerala High Court. The Madras High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the reference petitions, and they failed on that ground. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7275 Where the Income-tax Act did not expressly fix the High Court with territorial jurisdiction for a section 66(2) reference application, the Court applied ordinary territorial principles instead. It treated section 66(8) as neutral and held that Tribunal rules could not by themselves confer jurisdiction. Using the assessee's place of business or residence, and the nexus that penalty proceedings are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, jurisdiction was found to lie with the Kerala High Court. The Madras High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the reference petitions, and they failed on that ground. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7275