https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14977 Revenue's section 256(2) applications challenging denial of registration to a firm failed because the record showed the partnership deed and prescribed forms were filed, partner shares were specified, and registration had been granted after enquiry. The later objection rested on alleged lack of genuineness, but the appellate findings accepted the firm as genuine on facts and noted that any withdrawal of registration had to follow the statutory procedure under section 186(1). As the dispute was resolved substantially on factual findings, no referable question of law arose for the High Court's opinion, and the request to call for a statement of the case was declined. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:50:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14977 Revenue's section 256(2) applications challenging denial of registration to a firm failed because the record showed the partnership deed and prescribed forms were filed, partner shares were specified, and registration had been granted after enquiry. The later objection rested on alleged lack of genuineness, but the appellate findings accepted the firm as genuine on facts and noted that any withdrawal of registration had to follow the statutory procedure under section 186(1). As the dispute was resolved substantially on factual findings, no referable question of law arose for the High Court's opinion, and the request to call for a statement of the case was declined. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14977