https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18491 A question already concluded by the Supreme Court did not require reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, because the Tribunal was bound by the settled legal position. By contrast, the issue whether interest liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act turned only on the shortfall between advance surtax and assessed surtax remained an unsettled question of law, as neither the Supreme Court nor the jurisdictional court had settled its scope. On that basis, the note states that unresolved questions of law must be referred for opinion, while covered questions need not be reopened. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18491 A question already concluded by the Supreme Court did not require reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, because the Tribunal was bound by the settled legal position. By contrast, the issue whether interest liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act turned only on the shortfall between advance surtax and assessed surtax remained an unsettled question of law, as neither the Supreme Court nor the jurisdictional court had settled its scope. On that basis, the note states that unresolved questions of law must be referred for opinion, while covered questions need not be reopened. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18491