https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14632 A question not raised before the Tribunal could not be introduced for the first time in a later reference petition, because the reference jurisdiction was confined to the question earlier sought to be referred. The Tribunal's decision to defer the closing stock valuation issue pending a Special Bench ruling was treated as a permissible procedural course and did not itself create a referable question of law. On the HRA issue, the court followed its contemporaneous view and declined reference. The petition for reference was therefore not entertained on either issue and was dismissed. en-us Tue, 02 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:26:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14632 A question not raised before the Tribunal could not be introduced for the first time in a later reference petition, because the reference jurisdiction was confined to the question earlier sought to be referred. The Tribunal's decision to defer the closing stock valuation issue pending a Special Bench ruling was treated as a permissible procedural course and did not itself create a referable question of law. On the HRA issue, the court followed its contemporaneous view and declined reference. The petition for reference was therefore not entertained on either issue and was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14632