https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430217 Amounts received for centralized services were held not to justify interference with the Tribunal's view because the controlling issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier, unstayed Delhi High Court ruling. With no distinguishing factual or legal feature shown, the later appeal was treated as covered by binding precedent and was found not to raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's relief to the assessee was therefore sustained, and the earlier precedent continued to govern unless altered by the Supreme Court. en-us Thu, 10 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430217 Amounts received for centralized services were held not to justify interference with the Tribunal's view because the controlling issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier, unstayed Delhi High Court ruling. With no distinguishing factual or legal feature shown, the later appeal was treated as covered by binding precedent and was found not to raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's relief to the assessee was therefore sustained, and the earlier precedent continued to govern unless altered by the Supreme Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430217