https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22083 An application under section 256(2) seeking a direction to the Tribunal to frame and refer questions was refused where the Tribunal had already followed an earlier High Court precedent on the same issue. The Court applied its earlier Division Bench view that, once the Tribunal acts in conformity with binding High Court authority, no surviving referable question remains for the High Court's opinion. It further held that mere pendency of the point before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, justify a reference under section 256(2). The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:17:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22083 An application under section 256(2) seeking a direction to the Tribunal to frame and refer questions was refused where the Tribunal had already followed an earlier High Court precedent on the same issue. The Court applied its earlier Division Bench view that, once the Tribunal acts in conformity with binding High Court authority, no surviving referable question remains for the High Court's opinion. It further held that mere pendency of the point before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, justify a reference under section 256(2). The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22083