TMI Blog1940 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liquidation, and the question of law referred to us is as follows:- Whether the Assistant Commissioner correctly held that the Government Notification No. 11 of 4-4-1936 was applicable to the assessment of the assessee levied on 28-10-1937, even though the income assessed was for the year ended 31-3-1936 . The facts of the case appear to be that the assessees submitted the return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2nd November, 1935, which limited the exemption of income of this nature to ₹ 22,500. But while it is now clear to us that there was a Notification to this effect in November 1935, it appears that in the order of the Income-tax Officer reference is made to a Notification only of 1936, and in the order of the Assistant Commissioner on appeal from the assessment of the Income-tax Officer, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification of 1936. But we do not think that if there had been no Notification of 1935, but only the Notification of 1936, that would have helped the assessees at all, because while it is true that the quantum of income for the assessment of the year 1936-37, was the income of the year 1935-36, the assessment was not for the year 1935-36, but for the year 1936-37, and it appears to us that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication in force in 1935 exempting income of the kind now in question before us only to the extent of ₹ 22,500, and therefore on the argument which he placed before us and on which he relied, the assessees, his clients, would be liable to be assessed in accordance with the Notifications of 1935 limiting the exemption, nevertheless he says that we should show to him a certain consideration in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
