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. 2 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-10, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. Micro Associates Consultancy (I) Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent. J.S.Saluja for the appellant. None 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 : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By this appeal, the following questions are sought to be raised by the appellant- Revenue. "(a) Whether on the facts a circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under section 10A even though the assessee had neither brought any foreign exchange to India nor kept the money in designated account as per section 10A(2), on the basis of decision in the case of M/s.J.B.Boda and Co. (223 ITR 271) which was pertaining to deduction under section 80-O? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,61,591/- due to the cash deposit made by the assessee in bank even though no cash payments could have been received by the assessee from its earlier debtors being Government department? 3. So far as first question is concerned, the same has been considered and answered by the Tribunal relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case of J.B.Boda J.B.Boda J.B.Boda and Co. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Co. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Co. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, 223 ITR 271, which, in our opinion, is applicable to the facts of the present case. As such first question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law arising from the impugned order. 4. So far as second question is concerned, it is based on appreciation of evidence and facts. Cash deposits were explained and the assessee had received cash from the Government authorities as such the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer. 5. In the above view of the matter, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, 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.)