https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20963 The proposed reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act failed because the questions framed were factual in character and did not disclose any referable question of law. The Tribunal had accepted the factual nexus between the expenditure claimed and the earning of share income, and the Revenue did not establish any legal infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings. As the material on record supported those findings, the High Court rejected the request for a direction to state a case. en-us Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:54:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20963 The proposed reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act failed because the questions framed were factual in character and did not disclose any referable question of law. The Tribunal had accepted the factual nexus between the expenditure claimed and the earning of share income, and the Revenue did not establish any legal infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings. As the material on record supported those findings, the High Court rejected the request for a direction to state a case. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20963