https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291542 Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 permitted a direction to state a case only where the Commissioner wrongly refused to refer a genuine question of law. The assessee had to formulate the question under Section 66(2), and the Court treated the finding that no regular method of accounting had been employed, and that the accounts did not permit proper deduction of income, as a binding finding of fact. On that footing, the only issue was whether the Income Tax Officer's assessment method was unlawful. As the officer assessed income by taking the book capital, allowing a deduction for alleged loss of part of that capital, and charging a fair rate of interest on the balance, the method was held proper and no referable question of law arose. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291542 Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 permitted a direction to state a case only where the Commissioner wrongly refused to refer a genuine question of law. The assessee had to formulate the question under Section 66(2), and the Court treated the finding that no regular method of accounting had been employed, and that the accounts did not permit proper deduction of income, as a binding finding of fact. On that footing, the only issue was whether the Income Tax Officer's assessment method was unlawful. As the officer assessed income by taking the book capital, allowing a deduction for alleged loss of part of that capital, and charging a fair rate of interest on the balance, the method was held proper and no referable question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Mar 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291542