IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2000 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2000 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2000 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ...Appellant V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.P. Sathe for the Appellant. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 8th August, 2000. 2. The assessee had applied for issuance of No objection certificate. While issuing the same, the Assessee was directed to deduct the tax at source while making the remittance. According to the assessee, it was in the nature of reimbursement of the travelling expenses of the technical personnel coming from foreign country to India and thus, no tax need to be deducted. In the alternative, the assessee argued that the amount paid was to be exempted from the tax in India in view of - 2 - the provisions of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act. The order was questioned before CIT (Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the assessee and maintained the direction issued by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved from that order, the controversy was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while relying upon the Karnataka High Court Judgment in the case of 222 ITR 354 (Kar) and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment in 238 ITR 861 (AP), dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the direction issued. This order of the Tribunal is impugned in the present appeal. 3. As already noticed, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less, the substantial question of law arises for consideration. As far as principle plea whether tax deduction at source was called for or not, is fully covered by the judgments of two other High Courts. We see no reason to take a different view. 4. As far as other ancillary submission, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant himself referred to - 3 - Vol.245 (2000) ITR 823 in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Tata Vol.245 (2000) ITR 823 in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Tata Vol.245 (2000) ITR 823 in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. (Bom.). Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. (Bom.). Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. (Bom.). In this judgment, the Bench of this Court had clearly held that this was not a question of law and in fact, a tentative deduction of income-tax subject to regular assessment and does not affect the rights of the parties. 5. Appeal is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.