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 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.417 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.417 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.417 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.J.S.Saluja for appellant. Mr.Arun Sathe i/b. Kranti Sathe & Amruta Sathe for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law :- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT holding that debenture Trust Deed expenses and debenture issue expenses amounting to Rs.29,25,260/- are allowable as revenue expenditure disregarding the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798) wherein it has been held that expenses incurred in relation to raising of capital are to be considered as capital expenditure and hence disallowable ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that premium payable of Rs.6,86,212/- - = : 2 : = - on debentures is an allowable expenditure even though the liability to pay such premium arises only at the time of redemption of debentures ? 2. So far as the first question is concerned the same is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Madras Industrial Investment Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 I.T.R. 802 225 I.T.R. 802 225 I.T.R. 802. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the same is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of assessee itself reported in 250 I.T.R. 84 250 I.T.R. 84 250 I.T.R. 84 [C.I.T. V/s. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd.]. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any substantial question of law arise in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)