https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292990 The article addresses two issues: first, whether a Commissioner s refusal to interfere under Section 33 constitutes an order prejudicial and referable under Section 66(2); the analysis applies the proviso restricting references to points of law arising uniquely from the revisional order and concludes that questions of law common to subordinate and revisional orders are not referable, so the refusal is not maintainable as a reference. Second, whether interest from securities was taxable for AY 1936-37; the Commissioner s factual finding that interest was received after ownership vested and no prior trust existed led to upholding inclusion of the interest in the assessee s total income. en-us Mon, 27 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:23:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292990 The article addresses two issues: first, whether a Commissioner s refusal to interfere under Section 33 constitutes an order prejudicial and referable under Section 66(2); the analysis applies the proviso restricting references to points of law arising uniquely from the revisional order and concludes that questions of law common to subordinate and revisional orders are not referable, so the refusal is not maintainable as a reference. Second, whether interest from securities was taxable for AY 1936-37; the Commissioner s factual finding that interest was received after ownership vested and no prior trust existed led to upholding inclusion of the interest in the assessee s total income. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292990