IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.276 OF 2006 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Mumbai - 20 ..Appellant V/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Yogesh Patke with Mr.B.M. Chatterjee for the Appellant. Mr.S.M. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST JULY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The first contention urged is in relation to the retention money, but it is an admitted fact that the retention money was shown as income in the subsequent year and was assessed to tax and that finding has been accepted by the department. Therefore, there is no substance in the first contention. 3. The second contention is about the machinery of the assessee which was lying in Iraq and Malawi. According to the department, depreciation of this machinery has been wrongly allowed. It is clear from the order that this view has been taken by the tribunal in the peculiar circumstances prevailing in Iraq and Malawi. 4. In our opinion, therefore, as the view has been taken in peculiar facts, it will not be proper to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.