1 itxa1455-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1455 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 11, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Set India Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jas Sanghvi i/by PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. DATE : 12th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Four questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. 2. As regards the last three questions are concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has passed an order dated 15th June 2009 on the Miscellaneous Application No.173/MUM/2009 filed by the assessee and recalled its order on those issues in its entirety. Accordingly, last three questions cannot be entertained in this appeal. 2 itxa1455-10 3. As regards first question is concerned, the dispute is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of expenditure of Rs. 10,65,326/- incurred by the assessee as revenue expenditure. 4. The finding of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that the assessee had taken certain premises on lease for the purposes of its business and the assessee was required to incur expenditure on interior work, civil work and electrical fittings etc. amounting to Rs. 10,65,326/-. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that as per the lease agreement, the assessee was not entitled to remove any of the additions and alterations of permanent nature made to the property leased. 5. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expenditure cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)