https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283327 Once the High Court had admitted the appeals only on the two substantial questions of law identified in its earlier order, the Revenue could not use a subsequent Notice of Motion to reopen that limitation or seek treatment of additional questions as substantial. The proper course, if the Revenue was aggrieved by the restriction on admitted questions, was to challenge the earlier order in a higher forum, not to revisit it before the same Court. The Notices of Motion were therefore treated as misconceived and dismissed, with no order as to costs. en-us Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283327 Once the High Court had admitted the appeals only on the two substantial questions of law identified in its earlier order, the Revenue could not use a subsequent Notice of Motion to reopen that limitation or seek treatment of additional questions as substantial. The proper course, if the Revenue was aggrieved by the restriction on admitted questions, was to challenge the earlier order in a higher forum, not to revisit it before the same Court. The Notices of Motion were therefore treated as misconceived and dismissed, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283327