https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5446 The High Court should not have rejected the section 256(2) application as merely academic where the Revenue's proposed question on clubbing a spouse's share of profit under section 64 had not been finally foreclosed by earlier decisions. The Court treated the controversy as requiring substantive consideration on merits, and held that the reference could not be refused on the ground adopted by the High Court. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to state the question for the High Court's opinion. en-us Wed, 05 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5446 The High Court should not have rejected the section 256(2) application as merely academic where the Revenue's proposed question on clubbing a spouse's share of profit under section 64 had not been finally foreclosed by earlier decisions. The Court treated the controversy as requiring substantive consideration on merits, and held that the reference could not be refused on the ground adopted by the High Court. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to state the question for the High Court's opinion. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5446