1 ITXA3159-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ttm INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3159 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-18 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Miku Agencies .. Respondent. Mr.D.K.Kamwal for the appellant Ms.Usha Dalal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus: “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the addition u/s, 40 A(2) without appreciating the fact that such expenditure is excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the good, services of facilities for which the payment is made? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in directing to subtract 10% of interest income of Rs.1,36,572/- from indirect cost for calculating deduction u/s.80 HHC?” 2 ITXA3159-10.doc 2. As regards question (a) is concerned, the ITAT has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(A)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by following the decision in the case of the Assessee for earlier years. Admittedly, the Revenue has not challenged the decision of the ITAT in the earlier Assessment Years wherein such disallowance made under section 40(A)(2) of the Act were deleted. No case is made out for taking contrary view. In this view of the matter, the first question raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question (b) is concerned, counsel for the Revenue states that the ITAT allowed the claim of the asessment by following its decision in the case of Surrendra Engineering Corporation vs. CIT reported in 1986 ITD 121(Mum). The counsel for the revenue states that no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT. In this view of the matter, question (b) cannot be entertained. 5. Appeal is dismissed. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)