1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2100 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 July, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Revenue has raised nine questions of law in its appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1990-91. 2. Counsel for the Revenue states that questions (i), (vii) and (viii) are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos.3025 of 2009; 3025 of 2009; and 1953 of 2009 where similar questions have not been entertained by this Court. In view of the statement made, no substantial question of law would arise as regards the aforesaid 2 three questions. 3. As regards question (ii), the Tribunal has followed its own orders in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1987-88 to 1989-90. Counsel for the Revenue states that this finding for the earlier assessment years was not challenged in the appeal filed by the Revenue before this Court. In view of the statement, no substantial question of law would arise. 4. As regards question (iii), the Tribunal has again held that in view of its decision for assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 the disallowance would have to be deleted. Counsel for the Revenue has stated that the finding of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years was also not questioned in appeal before this Court. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise particularly since the Counsel for the Revenue has not pointed out any factual distinction before this Court. Counsel has also not pointed out that the earlier decision of the Tribunal is erroneous. 5. As regards question (iv), the Tribunal has followed its own decision for assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90. Counsel for the Revenue states that this issue would be covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1953 of 2009 where this Court declined to entertain the appeal on a similar issue. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 3 6. As regards question (v), the Tribunal has noted that same issue was considered and decided in favour of the assessee for assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 by the Tribunal. Counsel for the Revenue states that in the appeal by the Revenue, this finding of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years was not challenged. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise. 7. As regards question (vi), the disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal in view of its earlier decision for assessment years 1984-85 to 1985-86. Counsel for the Revenue has not been able to state that the earlier decision of the Tribunal was disturbed or that it is erroneous or distinguishable on facts. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise. 8. As regards question (ix), the Tribunal has merely remanded the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the question at this stage. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)