https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18962 A question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be refused for reference merely because the Tribunal considered it covered by precedent. The Court found the earlier Supreme Court ruling distinguishable because the present asset was acquired on partition of the family, whereas the precedent concerned self-acquired property. That material factual difference meant the issue was not squarely covered and was not merely academic, so the Tribunal's refusal to state the case was unjustified and it was directed to refer the question. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:05:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18962 A question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be refused for reference merely because the Tribunal considered it covered by precedent. The Court found the earlier Supreme Court ruling distinguishable because the present asset was acquired on partition of the family, whereas the precedent concerned self-acquired property. That material factual difference meant the issue was not squarely covered and was not merely academic, so the Tribunal's refusal to state the case was unjustified and it was directed to refer the question. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18962