1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.305 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ...Appellant vs. Tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd. ...Respondent. --- Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Ms.Anamika Malhotra, for Appellant. Mr.Soli Dastoor, Sr.Advocate with A.R.Jasani, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 14th August, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. The interpretation placed on the term “industrial undertaking” occurring in the provision of Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, in our opinion, is proper. The grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant-department that the decision of this Court in the Case of “Insight Diagnostic and 2 Oncological Research Institute Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2003)262 ITR 0041W” was not considered by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is not proper because that judgment though interprets the term “industrial undertaking” it interprets the term “industrial undertaking” found in sub-section (1) of Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. For the purpose of section 35D of the Act that judgment is not relevant. In our opinion, in so far as interpretation of the term “industrial undertaking” found in section 35D of the Act is concerned, the tribunal has rightly considered the meaning of the term “industrial undertaking” common parlance. We see no question of law arising. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)