Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's refusal to refer the proposed questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified, where the first proposed question did not arise from the Tribunal's order and the second had become academic.
Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded only that, before the amendment of section 9(1)(ii), the assessee entertained a bona fide belief that no tax was deductible on the foreign portion of salary paid outside India. It had not decided whether the amendment to section 9(1)(ii) was prospective or retrospective. Since the proposed first question sought a ruling on a matter not actually determined by the Tribunal, it did not arise out of the order. The second proposed question, concerning delay in initiating proceedings under section 201(1A), was rendered academic in view of the unchallenged finding of bona fide belief.
Conclusion: The refusal to direct a reference was justified, and no referable question of law was made out.
Final Conclusion: The petition for reference failed and was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A question cannot be referred under section 256(2) unless it arises from the Tribunal's order, and a proposed question rendered academic by an unchallenged finding does not warrant a reference.