(-1-) MGN 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 REFERENCE NO.94 OF 1996 The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant Vs. M/s.Sitcom Commercial Pvt. Ltd...Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry with Mr. Raj Darak, for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Tribunal was pleased to refer the following two questions:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was a company where the gross total income included mainly the income chargeable under the head Income from other sources and further that the provisions of Explanation below Sec. 73 were not applicable to it? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumswtances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer not to treat the loss of (-2-) Rs.2,00,17,000/- as speculative loss? From the facts on record we find that business income showed a loss of Rs.15,026/- and income from dividend was Rs.5,40,000/-. 2. We have considered the merit of the explanation in Income Tax Appeal No.296 of 2001 decided today i.e. 29th January, 2008. The ratio of the said judgment would squarely apply considering the facts on merits. In the light of that the questions which are referred are answered in the affirmative in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)