1 ITXA5609-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ttm INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5609 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Total Fina Elf India Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal read thus: (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the CIT(A) order in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of relocation expenses of Rs.48,96,599/-? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the CIT(A) order of deleting the addition of Rs.4,09,221/- in respect of Provident Fund payments made by the Assessee beyond the due date as provided in the P.F. Act? 2. The counsel for the parties state that as far as the first question is concerned, similar questions raised by the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai vs. M/s.Total Petroleum India 2 ITXA5609-11.doc Pvt.Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal (L) No.592 of 2008 has been dismissed by this court on 16.06.2009. For the reasons stated therein, the first question cannot be entertained. 3. As regards the 2nd question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered against the Revenue by the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. 4. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)