https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67068 A dispute over reassessment initiation did not require a reference under section 256(1) because the proposed question depended on factual findings rather than a referable question of law. The Tribunal applied the principle that intermediary steps in the reference process do not amount to final adjudication, and relied on the Supreme Court view in CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas that no question of law arises where reassessment was found lacking factual foundation. On that basis, the Tribunal declined to state the case and rejected the reference application. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:47:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67068 A dispute over reassessment initiation did not require a reference under section 256(1) because the proposed question depended on factual findings rather than a referable question of law. The Tribunal applied the principle that intermediary steps in the reference process do not amount to final adjudication, and relied on the Supreme Court view in CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas that no question of law arises where reassessment was found lacking factual foundation. On that basis, the Tribunal declined to state the case and rejected the reference application. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67068