https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21345 A question already concluded by a binding Full Bench precedent of the same High Court does not constitute a fresh referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, absent any contrary Supreme Court ruling. Applying that principle, the court treated the disallowance issue under section 40A(5) as settled and not referable. It also held that surtax is a charge on income and a levy on business profits, so it is not deductible as expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes; that issue too was governed by binding precedent and was not referable. The original petitions were dismissed because no referable question of law survived. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:00:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21345 A question already concluded by a binding Full Bench precedent of the same High Court does not constitute a fresh referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, absent any contrary Supreme Court ruling. Applying that principle, the court treated the disallowance issue under section 40A(5) as settled and not referable. It also held that surtax is a charge on income and a levy on business profits, so it is not deductible as expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes; that issue too was governed by binding precedent and was not referable. The original petitions were dismissed because no referable question of law survived. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21345