JUDGMENT By the Court Leave granted.
2. The High Court had disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant on 18-2-2002, by holding that the issues raised in the appeal were covered by the judgment of the High Court in the case of Director of IT (Exemptions) v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2000) 245 ITR 437 (Bom). The decision relied upon by the High Court has since been overturned by this Court's decision given in Civil Appeal Nos. 8211-8212/2001, between the same parties on 16-12-2002, and Director of IT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC).
2. The High Court had disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant on 18-2-2002, by holding that the issues raised in the appeal were covered by the judgment of the High Court in the case of Director of IT (Exemptions) v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2000) 245 ITR 437 (Bom). The decision relied upon by the High Court has since been overturned by this Court's decision given in Civil Appeal Nos. 8211-8212/2001, between the same parties on 16-12-2002, and Director of IT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, sought to reopen the issues determined by our decision by seeking to contend that the decision was incorrect. We are not prepared to allow the respondent to reopen the issues which have been conclusively held against it. In the circumstances, following the decision of this court in (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC) (supra), we allow these appeals without any order as to costs. We make it clear that we are limiting this decision strictly to the subject-matter of the appeal filed before the High Court. Therefore, if the subject-matter of the appeal before the High Court was based on the limited findings of the Commissioner, while affirming the order of the High Court, we leave the issues not decided by the Commissioner, if any, open.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, sought to reopen the issues determined by our decision by seeking to contend that the decision was incorrect. We are not prepared to allow the respondent to reopen the issues which have been conclusively held against it. In the circumstances, following the decision of this court in (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC) (supra), we allow these appeals without any order as to costs. We make it clear that we are limiting this decision strictly to the subject-matter of the appeal filed before the High Court. Therefore, if the subject-matter of the appeal before the High Court was based on the limited findings of the Commissioner, while affirming the order of the High Court, we leave the issues not decided by the Commissioner, if any, open.