Binding precedent on centralized service receipts defeated any substantial question of law in the revenue appeal.

Amounts received for centralized services were held not to justify interference with the Tribunal's view because the controlling issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier, unstayed Delhi High Court ruling. With no distinguishing factual or legal feature shown, the later appeal was treated as covered by binding precedent and was found not to raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's relief to the assessee was therefore sustained, and the earlier precedent continued to govern unless altered by the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amounts received by the assessee for centralized services constituted fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or fee for included services under Article 12(4)(a) of the Indo-US DTAA, and whether the Revenue's appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The issue had already been decided by the Court in favour of the assessee in an earlier decision, and no distinguishing factual or legal feature was shown to depart from that view. The earlier decision was also not stayed, so it continued to operate as binding precedent. In those circumstances, the appeal was treated as covered by the earlier ruling.

Conclusion: The receipts did not warrant interference with the Tribunal's view, and the appeal was dismissed for want of any substantial question of law.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's relief to the assessee was sustained, leaving the law as applied in the earlier precedent to govern until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controlling issue has already been concluded by a binding precedent that remains unstayed, a later appeal raising the same question does not present a substantial question of law and is liable to be dismissed.

---