1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2534 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Pune ..Appellant. Vs. Tata Johnson Controls Automotive Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aarti Sathe and Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 15th March, 2010. P.C.: The following question of law has been raised in the appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in allowing the expenditure incurred towards installation of electric lines and for infrastructure development, ignoring the fact that by its very nature the said expenditure is not incurred for day to day operations and hence cannot be treated as revenue expenditure?” 2 The decision of the Tribunal pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had contributed to infrastructure development, but had not become the owner of any asset and the expenditure had been laid out for the better functioning of the assessee’s business. This is a pure finding of fact which is recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and shall accordingly stand dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)