https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5701 Interpretation of section 57(i) raised a question of law on the allowability of a deduction claimed on remittance of money, so the High Court should have required the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question. Refusal to direct reference was unsustainable because, where the proposed reference turns on construction of the Act, the High Court must direct a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The deduction issue was therefore left for determination on reference, with the Revenue obtaining the direction for reference. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5701 Interpretation of section 57(i) raised a question of law on the allowability of a deduction claimed on remittance of money, so the High Court should have required the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question. Refusal to direct reference was unsustainable because, where the proposed reference turns on construction of the Act, the High Court must direct a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The deduction issue was therefore left for determination on reference, with the Revenue obtaining the direction for reference. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5701