https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275628 An application under Section 256(2) seeking reference of questions on deletion under Section 40A(5) was refused because identical or materially similar questions had already been rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court in earlier years. In the absence of any new or valid reason to depart from those prior decisions, the Court declined to exercise its power to direct a reference. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the disallowance issue or the attempt to distinguish the Gujarat Steel Tube decision, and confined itself to rejecting the referral request. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:21:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275628 An application under Section 256(2) seeking reference of questions on deletion under Section 40A(5) was refused because identical or materially similar questions had already been rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court in earlier years. In the absence of any new or valid reason to depart from those prior decisions, the Court declined to exercise its power to direct a reference. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the disallowance issue or the attempt to distinguish the Gujarat Steel Tube decision, and confined itself to rejecting the referral request. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275628