Valuation of compensation rights and non-referable factual issues bar reference where no question of law arises.

Where proposed reference questions concern pure findings of fact or settled valuation matters already governed by binding directions, no referable question of law arises. The Tribunal applied the present value method to a right to receive compensation, allowing for litigation risk through a discount rate consistent with earlier High Court directions and Supreme Court-approved principles. The revenue had proposed no alternative valuation method. The finding that compensation was received only after prolonged litigation was factual, and the interest issue did not arise from the Tribunal's order because interest is separate income, not compensation itself. The reference applications were therefore correctly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference applications could be entertained when the proposed questions either involved pure findings of fact or did not give rise to any referable question of law, including the valuation method for the right to receive compensation, the 25% discount for litigation risks, the treatment of interest, and the observation regarding prolonged litigation.

Analysis: The Tribunal's valuation approach followed the directions earlier given by the High Court and the principles approved by the Supreme Court, namely that once the assessee had only a right to receive compensation, that right had to be valued by applying the present value method and by allowing for risks, uncertainties, and hazards of litigation. The adoption of a discount rate and the choice of valuation technique were treated as matters within the accepted method of valuation, and the revenue had not proposed any alternative method before the Tribunal. The finding that the assessee obtained compensation only after a prolonged and tortuous course of litigation was a pure finding of fact. The question relating to interest was also held not to arise from the Tribunal's order, since interest, when granted, is not compensation itself but separate income.

Conclusion: The questions proposed by the revenue were not referable questions of law, and the reference applications were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decision leaves undisturbed the Tribunal's valuation approach and declines to refer the proposed questions for opinion of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference cannot be made on issues that are either pure questions of fact or settled valuation matters already governed by binding directions and accepted legal principles, and a question not arising from the Tribunal's order is not referable.

---