JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. Counsel contends that the question raised in this appeal, though one which has already been answered by this court against the Revenue in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1998] 229 ITR 285, should nevertheless be considered once again, as an appeal against that judgment preferred by the Revenue is pending before the Supreme Court. We are unable to agree. This court having considered the question in all its aspects and having come to a definite conclusion that the question is one which must be answered against the Revenue, the mere pendency of the appeal against the judgment does not render the judgment already delivered by this court ineffective. Section 260A(5) of the Income-tax Act provides that the High Court shall decide the question of law formulated under Sub-section (1) and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it thinks fit. This provision clearly requires this court to decide the question of law formulated by it under Sub-section (1) of Section 260A of the Act. Even if we admit the appeal for considering the question, our answer to that question will have to be in accordance with the decision already rendered by this court, to which reference has been made earlier. For the purpose of reiterating what has already been done by this court, we do not consider it necessary to admit this or similar appeals raising the same question again and again. The appeal is rejected.