Binding precedent on substantial questions of law led to dismissal of the Revenue's income-tax appeal.

Substantial questions of law in an income-tax appeal were held to be covered by binding precedent, including an earlier decision in the assessee's own case and later Court decisions. As the Revenue did not dispute that position, no further examination on merits was warranted. The Court therefore found no basis for interference and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the questions of law raised by the Revenue were already covered against it by prior decisions of the Court. (ii) Whether the appeal deserved interference in view of the binding precedents.

Issue (i): Whether the questions of law raised by the Revenue were already covered against it by prior decisions of the Court.

Analysis: The respondent pointed out that the first question of law stood covered by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case, and the second question was covered by later decisions of the Court. The Revenue did not dispute that position.

Conclusion: The questions of law were covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal deserved interference in view of the binding precedents.

Analysis: Once the issues raised were found to be governed by prior binding decisions, no further consideration on merits was warranted.

Conclusion: The appeal did not merit interference.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantial questions of law raised in an income-tax appeal are covered by binding precedent, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the questions answered accordingly.

---