https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292016 Article 109 of the Limitation Act governed the claim for profits wrongfully received, and limitation ran from the date each profit was received. The pendency of proceedings to set aside the sale did not create any general equitable exception or suspend time once it had begun to run, because the statute contained no saving provision applicable to the case. On that basis, the claim for profits received more than three years before suit was held barred by limitation, while the cross-objection succeeded only to the extent of correcting an item and reducing liability. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 13:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292016 Article 109 of the Limitation Act governed the claim for profits wrongfully received, and limitation ran from the date each profit was received. The pendency of proceedings to set aside the sale did not create any general equitable exception or suspend time once it had begun to run, because the statute contained no saving provision applicable to the case. On that basis, the claim for profits received more than three years before suit was held barred by limitation, while the cross-objection succeeded only to the extent of correcting an item and reducing liability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292016