<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1927 (12) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292701</link>
    <description>A question of law could not be carried into reference proceedings unless it had been raised before the Commissioner within the time prescribed by Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The statutory right to seek a reference was confined to questions lawfully raised in time, and the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to matters validly referred under the Act. A point omitted before the Commissioner could not later be introduced in a reference, and the objection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1927 (12) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292701</link>
      <description>A question of law could not be carried into reference proceedings unless it had been raised before the Commissioner within the time prescribed by Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The statutory right to seek a reference was confined to questions lawfully raised in time, and the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to matters validly referred under the Act. A point omitted before the Commissioner could not later be introduced in a reference, and the objection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>