Before the Tribunal  the assessee has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT in Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2020 wherein, the tax appeal was preferred by the Revenue on the aspect as to whether interest received on staff loan is business income or not for the purpose of consideration of disallowance under s. 14A. The facts of the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT and the facts of the case of the assessee are identical and not different. Tribunal relied on Orissa High Court in Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd v. Asst CIT (ITA Nos, 1, 2, 3 of 2015 dt. 11 th March, 2022) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The asseesse filed miscellaneous application which was  dismissed by the Tribunal. On writ the allowing the petition the  Court held that   the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court while distinguishing the facts of the case of the assessee by ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. More particularly, when the CIT and the Tribunal in case of the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT have held that interest income on staff loans is required to be treated as ‘business income’ instead of ‘income from other sources’ which is confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid tax appeal. In case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. in ITA No. 633 of 2013, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after considering the decision of this Court, has held that the interest on staff loans and advances are part of the ‘business income’ only. In such circumstances, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal as well as this Court were binding upon the Tribunal resulting into the mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal therefore ought to have considered such aspect while deciding the miscellaneous application under s. 254(2). Tribunal therefore ought to have considered such aspect while deciding the miscellaneous application under s. 254(2). The decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding upon the Tribunal. In such circumstances, not following the binding decision is mistake apparent on record. Referred,  Sayaji Iron & Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 172 CTR 339  / 253 ITR 749 (Guj)(HC),   Air Conditioning Specialists (P) Ltd. v. UOI  (1997) 137 CTR 211/(1996) 221 ITR 739 (Guj) (HC).  (AY.2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15)