No substantial question of law arises where issues are conceded, settled, or involve a payment to self in tax disputes.

An appeal under section 260A was held not to lie because no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's proposed issues on Nostro account interest, exemption under section 10(15)(iv)(h), head office expenses under section 44C, interest on income-tax refund under section 244A, or interest received by an Indian permanent establishment from its head office and overseas branches. Questions already conceded before the Tribunal, covered by settled decisions, or resting on a payment-to-self principle were not entertainable. The court also noted that the refund-interest issue had only been restored for reconsideration in light of the Indo-France treaty and an existing Special Bench view. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's proposed questions concerning taxability of Nostro account interest, gross basis of exemption under section 10(15)(iv)(h), allowability of head office expenses without restriction under section 44C, the rate applicable to interest on income-tax refund under section 244A, and taxability of interest received by the Indian permanent establishment from its head office and overseas branches.

Analysis: The appeal under section 260A was found to be unsustainable because the first proposed question challenged an order that had in fact granted the Revenue's own request on taxability of Nostro account interest. The second and third proposed questions were not entertainable because the Revenue had conceded the relevant positions before the Tribunal, and those issues were also covered by settled decisions. The fourth question was not admitted because the Tribunal had merely restored the matter for decision in the light of the Indo-France treaty and an existing Special Bench view, which had already been followed in similar matters. The fifth question failed because interest received by an Indian permanent establishment from its own head office was treated as a payment to self, and a person cannot make a profit out of itself; the reliance on a different treaty-based deduction issue in another case was held irrelevant.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law was made out on any of the proposed questions, and the Revenue's appeal was not entertainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under section 260A lies only where a substantial question of law arises, and issues already conceded, settled, or involving a payment to self do not furnish such a question.

---