https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5931 SC held the HC erred in refusing to direct a reference under s.256(2) because questions of law arose from the Tribunal's failure to appreciate material factual evidence. The Tribunal neglected to examine the genuineness and source of alleged donations, identity and creditworthiness of donors, and whether certain shares belonged to the assessee or to others, rendering its decision potentially perverse. Those omissions raised legal questions requiring determination by the HC, so a reference should have been directed for proper adjudication. en-us Fri, 09 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2026 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5931 SC held the HC erred in refusing to direct a reference under s.256(2) because questions of law arose from the Tribunal's failure to appreciate material factual evidence. The Tribunal neglected to examine the genuineness and source of alleged donations, identity and creditworthiness of donors, and whether certain shares belonged to the assessee or to others, rendering its decision potentially perverse. Those omissions raised legal questions requiring determination by the HC, so a reference should have been directed for proper adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5931