https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208916 Binding precedent controlled the revenue's challenge under Section 260-A because the same controversy had already been decided by the High Court in an earlier order involving the same assessee. The court therefore treated the appeal as covered by that prior decision and did not independently examine the allegations that the agreements were a colourable device, that the corporate veil should be pierced, or the ITAT's interpretation of McDowell Ltd. The appeal was dismissed on that basis without further merits adjudication. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208916 Binding precedent controlled the revenue's challenge under Section 260-A because the same controversy had already been decided by the High Court in an earlier order involving the same assessee. The court therefore treated the appeal as covered by that prior decision and did not independently examine the allegations that the agreements were a colourable device, that the corporate veil should be pierced, or the ITAT's interpretation of McDowell Ltd. The appeal was dismissed on that basis without further merits adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208916