https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292809 The taxation dispute turned on whether the bill was filed outside the prescribed three-month period counted from the date of signing the decree or order, whether extension of time was justified, and whether vouchers for counsel's fees were required. The Federal Court accepted the earlier view that the rule fixed a clear three-month limit from the signing date, declined to depart from that construction, and found no basis to question the treatment of counsel's fees. The reconsideration application was rejected, with costs awarded against the applicant. en-us Mon, 15 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292809 The taxation dispute turned on whether the bill was filed outside the prescribed three-month period counted from the date of signing the decree or order, whether extension of time was justified, and whether vouchers for counsel's fees were required. The Federal Court accepted the earlier view that the rule fixed a clear three-month limit from the signing date, declined to depart from that construction, and found no basis to question the treatment of counsel's fees. The reconsideration application was rejected, with costs awarded against the applicant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292809