HVN 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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4648 OF 2007 ALONGWITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2501 OF OF OF 2007 The Director of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Warner Bros. ... Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Balkrishna Jhaveri 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: MARCH 17, 2008 DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . There is delay of 403 days. . The Revenue has come in appeal on the following question of law : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to compute income @ 25% of receipts drawing strength from a settlement between Motion Pictures Exports Association of America and Central Board of Direct Taxes in 1987 without appreciating that such settlement was valid only upto Assessment Year 1986-87?" . On behalf of the Assessee, the learned counsel draws our attention to the assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-04 were the very issue which arises here was considered and has been accepted by the Assessment Officer. No steps have been taken by the Revenue against the said order. . Our attention is also invited to the judgment of the Special Bench in Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Warner Brothers (FE) Inc. (2006) 282 ITR (AT) 90 (Mumbai) (SB) where though it is accepted that the settlement was valid till the year 1986-87, none the less the income has been computed at the rate of 25% on receipts. . Even otherwise, the learned counsel points out that the question as framed is a question of fact and does not give rise to a question of law. . Considering the cause shown, in so far as the Motion is concerned, it does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, Motion along with appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)