https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5392 The High Court erred in refusing a reference on the assumption that the validity of notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was already concluded by an earlier decision. The Supreme Court noted that the question referred from the Tribunal was not covered in the manner assumed and that the meaning of "issued" in section 297(2)(d)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depends on its statutory context. As the question of law arose directly from the Tribunal's order, it could not be treated as finally settled merely by the earlier case. A reference was therefore required. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2026 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5392 The High Court erred in refusing a reference on the assumption that the validity of notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was already concluded by an earlier decision. The Supreme Court noted that the question referred from the Tribunal was not covered in the manner assumed and that the meaning of "issued" in section 297(2)(d)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depends on its statutory context. As the question of law arose directly from the Tribunal's order, it could not be treated as finally settled merely by the earlier case. A reference was therefore required. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5392