-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1034 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-14 : Appellant v/s M/s. Dawood & Company : Respondent Mr. D.K. Kamwal for Appellant Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for Respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 8.9.2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The above appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the A.O.to delete the inflation in purchases of Rs. 3,27,285/-? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(a)’s order deleting the disallowance of rent of Rs. 12,00,000/- paid by M/s. Brihad Bhartiya Samaj? c)(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) rejecting the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of unproved legal charges paid to M/s. Firdosh & Co. Advocates & Solicitors? (ii) Should not the I.T.A.T. have hpheld, -2- without prejudice to the above contention, atleast the addition to the extent of the disallowance specified u/s. 40A(3)? 2. As far as question no.A is concerned both the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent categorically agreed that the said question of law is squarely covered by the judgment of our court in Income Tax Appeal no. 367/2002 and all the above connected appeals in the case of CIT vs M/s Metro Shoes Ltd. dt. 3.3.2008 against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view thereof said question does not survive and said question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 3. As far as question no.B is concerned the same is a finding of fact as apparent from ITAT order in paragraph 5 wherein ITAT has concurred with the finding of fact given by CIT. 4. Similarly question no. C(i) is concerned, ITAT has concurred with the finding of fact given by CIT as apparent from paragraphs 10 and 12 of the impugned order of ITAT. 5. As far as question C(ii) is concerned both the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent -3- agreed that the said question does not arise at all out of the impugned order passed by the ITAT. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits and stands disposed of accordingly. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)