Prior decisions controlled treatment of interest, CSR s, and mines closure expenditure, leading to dismissal of the revenue appeal.

Revenue's challenge to the characterisation of interest receipt as capital receipt, interest on FDRs as income from other sources, disallowance of mandatory CSR expenses, and allowance of mines closure plan expenditure was treated as covered by earlier decisions involving the same assessee and similar issues. The HC noted that Questions 1 to 3 were already decided in favour of the assessee in a prior judgment, while Question 4 was governed by another decision rejecting the revenue's stand. As the questions were bound by those precedents, the revenue's appeal was dismissed without examination on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue's challenge to the treatment of interest receipt as capital receipt, the treatment of interest on FDRs as income from other sources, the disallowance of mandatory CSR expenses, and the allowability of mines closure plan expenditure survived in view of prior decisions.

Analysis: The questions raised in the appeal were stated to have already been decided by the Court in earlier judgments covering the same assessee and similar issues. Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were held to stand covered by the earlier decision allowing the assessee's appeal, while Question No. 4 was covered by another decision dismissing the revenue's appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained on merits and was dismissed as the issues stood covered against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal failed in light of binding prior decisions on the identical questions involved.

---