https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304922 The court treated the dividend income question as concluded by Supreme Court authority and held that 60% of dividend income from tea companies could not be deemed agricultural income, so the assessee failed on that substantive tax issue. It also held that the ninety-day requirement for referring the statement of case under section 66(1) was directory, not mandatory, because it governed performance of a public duty and non-compliance did not by itself invalidate the reference. The procedural objection was therefore rejected. en-us Sun, 20 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:46:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304922 The court treated the dividend income question as concluded by Supreme Court authority and held that 60% of dividend income from tea companies could not be deemed agricultural income, so the assessee failed on that substantive tax issue. It also held that the ninety-day requirement for referring the statement of case under section 66(1) was directory, not mandatory, because it governed performance of a public duty and non-compliance did not by itself invalidate the reference. The procedural objection was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Sun, 20 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304922