https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36236 On materially similar facts to an earlier rejected reference application, the Bombay HC declined to direct the Tribunal under section 256(2) to state a case on whether tenancy rights were a capital asset, surrender of those rights amounted to a transfer, and capital gains arose under section 45. The court treated the prior rejection, including the failed attempt to obtain special leave, as a sufficient basis to refuse a further reference. The application was not entertained and was dismissed. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36236 On materially similar facts to an earlier rejected reference application, the Bombay HC declined to direct the Tribunal under section 256(2) to state a case on whether tenancy rights were a capital asset, surrender of those rights amounted to a transfer, and capital gains arose under section 45. The court treated the prior rejection, including the failed attempt to obtain special leave, as a sufficient basis to refuse a further reference. The application was not entertained and was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36236