https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400053 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, a substantial question of law may be framed later only if it was omitted or had escaped earlier consideration; a question consciously refused at the admission stage cannot be revived in the same proceedings through a miscellaneous application. The court treated this restraint as consistent with the law of the case principle and rejected the Revenue's request to reopen the earlier refusal. With the additional question not entertained and the disputed tax effect falling below the CBDT threshold, no further merits adjudication was undertaken and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400053 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, a substantial question of law may be framed later only if it was omitted or had escaped earlier consideration; a question consciously refused at the admission stage cannot be revived in the same proceedings through a miscellaneous application. The court treated this restraint as consistent with the law of the case principle and rejected the Revenue's request to reopen the earlier refusal. With the additional question not entertained and the disputed tax effect falling below the CBDT threshold, no further merits adjudication was undertaken and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400053