https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289554 Whether share dealings and a sewing-machine business formed one continuing business depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee's memorandum authorised both activities and that share transactions had been carried on since incorporation. That finding was supported by the record, so the characterisation of the activities as one business, rather than separate businesses, did not itself raise a question of law for reference under section 66(2). The further request to frame an additional question was also rejected because it had not been raised before the Tribunal and, in any event, the record supported the Tribunal's view. No referable question of law arose, and the refusal to direct a reference was upheld. en-us Fri, 27 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2020 13:15:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289554 Whether share dealings and a sewing-machine business formed one continuing business depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee's memorandum authorised both activities and that share transactions had been carried on since incorporation. That finding was supported by the record, so the characterisation of the activities as one business, rather than separate businesses, did not itself raise a question of law for reference under section 66(2). The further request to frame an additional question was also rejected because it had not been raised before the Tribunal and, in any event, the record supported the Tribunal's view. No referable question of law arose, and the refusal to direct a reference was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289554