https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19064 A reference under section 256(2) is not justified where the proposed question is already covered by binding High Court precedent. The document states that the issue concerned capital subsidy for computing deductible depreciation, but that controversy had been settled by an earlier Division Bench decision. Because the legal position was already concluded, calling for a case would be merely academic and futile, and the Tribunal would only be asked to restate an answer governed by existing law. The Revenue's applications were therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:01:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19064 A reference under section 256(2) is not justified where the proposed question is already covered by binding High Court precedent. The document states that the issue concerned capital subsidy for computing deductible depreciation, but that controversy had been settled by an earlier Division Bench decision. Because the legal position was already concluded, calling for a case would be merely academic and futile, and the Tribunal would only be asked to restate an answer governed by existing law. The Revenue's applications were therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19064