https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296450 The Tribunal's finding that there was no business and no material supporting a bogus reimbursement claim was treated as a pure finding of fact, so no substantial question of law arose from Questions 5.1 to 5.3. Question 5.4 was also not separately considered because it was already covered by the binding precedent in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The framed questions therefore did not justify appellate interference. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296450 The Tribunal's finding that there was no business and no material supporting a bogus reimbursement claim was treated as a pure finding of fact, so no substantial question of law arose from Questions 5.1 to 5.3. Question 5.4 was also not separately considered because it was already covered by the binding precedent in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The framed questions therefore did not justify appellate interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296450