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 NO. 410 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Tata Sons Ltd. ... Respondent. Vimal Gupta with P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Dinesh Vyas, senior counsel with Ajit Shah and P.C.Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal. 2. By this appeal, the following questions of law are sought to be raised by the appellant- Revenue: "(A) Whether on the facts and on in the circumstances of the case and law, the I.T.A.T. is right in directing the A.O. to tax the dividend income on net basis? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT is right in deleting the additions relating to telephone expenses and conveyance disallowed under rule 6D? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the I.T.A.T. is right in treating the amount was received on termination of re-insurance division of the assessee company as capital receipt? 2. So far as question-A is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that the said question is covered by this Court in C.I.T. C.I.T. C.I.T. v. Ambalal Kilachand v. Ambalal Kilachand v. Ambalal Kilachand, (1995) 81 Taxman 435 (Bom). In this view of the matter, the said question can hardly be said to be a substantial question of law. 3. So far as question-B is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee submits that this question is covered by the judgments of this Court in C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. Acme Acme Acme Manufacturing Co., Manufacturing Co., Manufacturing Co., 249 ITR 460; C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. Chemet Chemet Chemet, 240 ITR 624; and C.I.T. v. Gannon Dunkerly & C.I.T. v. Gannon Dunkerly & C.I.T. v. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Co. Co., 114 CTR 56. 4. So far question-C is concerned the same is also covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Narendra D. Desai C.I.T. v. Narendra D. Desai C.I.T. v. Narendra D. Desai, (2008) 214 CTR 190. 5. In the above view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)