https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25163 A question on whether fresh evidence was admitted before the first appellate authority in breach of Rule 46A was treated as referable because it arose from the appellate order and was specifically raised in the reference application. By contrast, a broadly framed challenge to the Tribunal's affirmation of that order was rejected because it did not identify a distinct legal issue with sufficient precision. The discussion emphasises that only a specific, legally identifiable question can be referred, while a vague and general formulation is not fit for reference. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:09:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25163 A question on whether fresh evidence was admitted before the first appellate authority in breach of Rule 46A was treated as referable because it arose from the appellate order and was specifically raised in the reference application. By contrast, a broadly framed challenge to the Tribunal's affirmation of that order was rejected because it did not identify a distinct legal issue with sufficient precision. The discussion emphasises that only a specific, legally identifiable question can be referred, while a vague and general formulation is not fit for reference. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25163