https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33822 The HC allowed the taxpayer's appeal on the question of law concerning interpretation of sections 43B, 2(24)(x) read with 36(1)(va) relating to deductions for PF, EPF and ESIC contributions. The court held that a dismissal of a special leave petition cannot be treated as binding law unless the judgment meets the three postulates of precedent (findings of material facts, applicable legal principles, and judgment applying those facts and principles), and thus the prior SLP dismissal was not authoritative. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33822 The HC allowed the taxpayer's appeal on the question of law concerning interpretation of sections 43B, 2(24)(x) read with 36(1)(va) relating to deductions for PF, EPF and ESIC contributions. The court held that a dismissal of a special leave petition cannot be treated as binding law unless the judgment meets the three postulates of precedent (findings of material facts, applicable legal principles, and judgment applying those facts and principles), and thus the prior SLP dismissal was not authoritative. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33822