https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275381 The appeal was summarily dismissed because none of the three proposed questions disclosed a substantial question of law. Question No. 1 was held to be covered by the Gujarat High Court's binding precedent in Dy. C.I.T. v. Core Healthcare Ltd., so it could not justify admission. Question No. 2 was treated as controlled by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Mahendra Mills Ltd., and therefore also failed to raise a substantial question of law. Question No. 3 was found not to raise any legal question at all. On that basis, the appeal did not merit further consideration. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Sep 2018 17:17:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275381 The appeal was summarily dismissed because none of the three proposed questions disclosed a substantial question of law. Question No. 1 was held to be covered by the Gujarat High Court's binding precedent in Dy. C.I.T. v. Core Healthcare Ltd., so it could not justify admission. Question No. 2 was treated as controlled by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Mahendra Mills Ltd., and therefore also failed to raise a substantial question of law. Question No. 3 was found not to raise any legal question at all. On that basis, the appeal did not merit further consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275381