Substantial question of law rejected where the third issue was already covered by the assessee's own earlier decision.

The Bombay HC noted that the first two questions in the appeal had already been answered in favour of the assessee, and the claim had been granted by the Assessing Officer on remand. On the third question, the Court followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and held that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal therefore failed on that issue, leaving no basis for further interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third question raised in the appeal gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The first two questions had already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the claim had been granted by the Assessing Officer on remand. As regards the third question, the Court followed its own decision in the assessee's case and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The third question was not a substantial question of law and the appeal failed.

---