https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24867 Interpretation of a retrospective statutory amendment to section 37(2A) made the first proposed question a question of law, so the Tribunal had to state a case and refer it. The remaining proposed questions were not referable because they rested on concurrent factual findings as to the source of expenditure on a foreign tour and the basis for extra shift allowance, while the fourth question was resolved on accepted definitions without contrary material. The application therefore succeeded only on the first question and failed on the others. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:13:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24867 Interpretation of a retrospective statutory amendment to section 37(2A) made the first proposed question a question of law, so the Tribunal had to state a case and refer it. The remaining proposed questions were not referable because they rested on concurrent factual findings as to the source of expenditure on a foreign tour and the basis for extra shift allowance, while the fourth question was resolved on accepted definitions without contrary material. The application therefore succeeded only on the first question and failed on the others. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24867