https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6154 The High Court's judgment in multiple appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the treatment of income as capital gains was set aside due to failure in formulating a substantial question of law. Emphasizing procedural adherence, the judgment clarified the distinction between questions of law and substantial questions of law, limiting interference with factual findings. The case was remitted for fresh consideration, highlighting the necessity of complying with section 260A's procedural requirements for appeals before the High Court without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6154 The High Court's judgment in multiple appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the treatment of income as capital gains was set aside due to failure in formulating a substantial question of law. Emphasizing procedural adherence, the judgment clarified the distinction between questions of law and substantial questions of law, limiting interference with factual findings. The case was remitted for fresh consideration, highlighting the necessity of complying with section 260A's procedural requirements for appeals before the High Court without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6154