https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16141 Concurrent factual findings that educational institutions were genuine and not benamidars could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court held that such jurisdiction is confined to cases where refusal to state a case is legally unsustainable; pure findings of fact, especially concurrent findings by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, are not interfered with unless perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on irrelevant material. As the genuineness of the firms was essentially factual and no referable question of law arose, the reference applications were rejected. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:28:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16141 Concurrent factual findings that educational institutions were genuine and not benamidars could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court held that such jurisdiction is confined to cases where refusal to state a case is legally unsustainable; pure findings of fact, especially concurrent findings by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, are not interfered with unless perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on irrelevant material. As the genuineness of the firms was essentially factual and no referable question of law arose, the reference applications were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16141