https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123011 Once the Tribunal's earlier order had merged in the High Court's appellate judgment, it had no jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous application seeking revival of an omitted additional ground. The High Court had already held, applying Article 7(1) of the India-Singapore tax treaty and section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that no further profits could be attributed to the foreign enterprise in India where the Indian agent was remunerated at arm's length. That treaty-based finding concluded the substantive tax liability, so the domestic-law ground had become infructuous. The miscellaneous application was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123011 Once the Tribunal's earlier order had merged in the High Court's appellate judgment, it had no jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous application seeking revival of an omitted additional ground. The High Court had already held, applying Article 7(1) of the India-Singapore tax treaty and section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that no further profits could be attributed to the foreign enterprise in India where the Indian agent was remunerated at arm's length. That treaty-based finding concluded the substantive tax liability, so the domestic-law ground had become infructuous. The miscellaneous application was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123011