https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23655 HC held that, under s.256(1) IT Act, the Tribunal erred in referring the second part of the question, as a non-aggrieved party cannot expand the scope of reference beyond what is properly sought by the aggrieved party. On merits, the HC ruled that an assessee maintaining accounts on the mercantile system must adopt a consistent basis for both receipt and payment of interest. The assessee could not claim mercantile basis for interest payable while seeking cash basis for interest receivable. Consequently, the interest amounts in dispute were held chargeable to income tax, and the first part of the reference was answered against the assessee. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23655 HC held that, under s.256(1) IT Act, the Tribunal erred in referring the second part of the question, as a non-aggrieved party cannot expand the scope of reference beyond what is properly sought by the aggrieved party. On merits, the HC ruled that an assessee maintaining accounts on the mercantile system must adopt a consistent basis for both receipt and payment of interest. The assessee could not claim mercantile basis for interest payable while seeking cash basis for interest receivable. Consequently, the interest amounts in dispute were held chargeable to income tax, and the first part of the reference was answered against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23655