https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186534 Binding precedent barred a fresh reference under section 256(2) where the proposed questions were already covered by earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions, so no referable question of law arose on those points. The Court also declined to refer the issues on higher depreciation for treating a cinema building as plant and on classification of entertainment tax remittance as a capital receipt because the Tribunal had already made a reference on those questions. The reference application was therefore rejected in respect of both the precedent-covered questions and the questions already referred by the Tribunal. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:40:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186534 Binding precedent barred a fresh reference under section 256(2) where the proposed questions were already covered by earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions, so no referable question of law arose on those points. The Court also declined to refer the issues on higher depreciation for treating a cinema building as plant and on classification of entertainment tax remittance as a capital receipt because the Tribunal had already made a reference on those questions. The reference application was therefore rejected in respect of both the precedent-covered questions and the questions already referred by the Tribunal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186534