:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1462 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1462 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1462 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Wall Street Construction Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.J.S.Saluja for the Appellant. Mr.P.R.Toprani for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The above Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment by the AO was illegal and invalid, ignoring the fact on record that it was done so after issuing Notice u/s.148 and after obtaining approval of the CIT, City-II, Mumbai as required under the statutory provisions of Section 151(1) of the IT Act ? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not appreciating the submissions of the Revenue that the assessee should have added interest income to the cost of the project and it should have been reflected in the value of the work-in-progress and that the Assessee is wrongly claiming deduction on this account and therefore the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment? C. Was it not proper on the part of the Hon’ble ITAT to have considered that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case :2: is covered by Clause-B of Section 149(1) of the IT Act under which the AO is justified in not giving deduction of the interest amount u/s. 36(1)(iii) for the amount of Rs.23,83,661/-? 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly states, that in view of the judgment of the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Wall Street Wall Street Wall Street Construction Construction Construction Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax, Tax, Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) (SB) (SB) (SB), the Respondent is not opposing the above Appeal. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also states, that the above decision of the Special Bench pertains to the very same Assessee and the above Appeal was filed prior to the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench. 3. In view thereof, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)