https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21224 A reference under section 256(2) was not warranted where the question on an addition under section 43B had already been concluded by the High Court's earlier decisions upholding the provision and construing its first proviso. The Court treated that precedent as settling the legal position and held that a question already answered by binding authority, or otherwise self-evident, does not require reference merely because it is framed as a legal issue. Admission of special leave petitions did not change the position before the High Court, and the reference request was rejected. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:31:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21224 A reference under section 256(2) was not warranted where the question on an addition under section 43B had already been concluded by the High Court's earlier decisions upholding the provision and construing its first proviso. The Court treated that precedent as settling the legal position and held that a question already answered by binding authority, or otherwise self-evident, does not require reference merely because it is framed as a legal issue. Admission of special leave petitions did not change the position before the High Court, and the reference request was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21224