https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31158 Where the revenue challenged deletion of disallowance of bad debts written off, the Court held that no substantial question of law survived because the same issue had already been decided against the revenue in earlier appeals and counsel conceded that position. The prior High Court rulings were treated as binding, so the proposed question regarding absence of evidence that the debts had become bad did not warrant fresh consideration. As a result, the Section 260A appeal was declined and dismissed as lacking merit. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31158 Where the revenue challenged deletion of disallowance of bad debts written off, the Court held that no substantial question of law survived because the same issue had already been decided against the revenue in earlier appeals and counsel conceded that position. The prior High Court rulings were treated as binding, so the proposed question regarding absence of evidence that the debts had become bad did not warrant fresh consideration. As a result, the Section 260A appeal was declined and dismissed as lacking merit. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31158