https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26335 In a reference application under section 256(2), a question on disallowance of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) was treated as a question of law because the statutory effect of the non obstante provision directly arose from the Tribunal's order, so it was directed to be referred. The question on extra profit and the proviso to section 145(1) was treated as a finding of fact and therefore not referable. A third, consequential question was held unnecessary because it was either covered by the first question or shared the same defect as the second. Partial relief was thus confined to the first question. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26335 In a reference application under section 256(2), a question on disallowance of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) was treated as a question of law because the statutory effect of the non obstante provision directly arose from the Tribunal's order, so it was directed to be referred. The question on extra profit and the proviso to section 145(1) was treated as a finding of fact and therefore not referable. A third, consequential question was held unnecessary because it was either covered by the first question or shared the same defect as the second. Partial relief was thus confined to the first question. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26335