https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5799 Questions proposed under section 256(2) were held not to disclose any referable question of law because the controversy depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the partnership deed recognised Prem Lata as a one-third partner and that her alleged representation of a Hindu undivided family did not justify of registration. As the proposed questions were not clearly and properly framed to capture the factual context, the matter was treated as one of factual appreciation rather than statutory interpretation. The High Court was therefore correct in refusing to call for a reference. en-us Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5799 Questions proposed under section 256(2) were held not to disclose any referable question of law because the controversy depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the partnership deed recognised Prem Lata as a one-third partner and that her alleged representation of a Hindu undivided family did not justify of registration. As the proposed questions were not clearly and properly framed to capture the factual context, the matter was treated as one of factual appreciation rather than statutory interpretation. The High Court was therefore correct in refusing to call for a reference. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5799