K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.152 OF 2009 The CIT-3, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Shanudeep Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mrs.V.B.Patel for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.3.2009. PC 1. Revenue is in appeal on the following two questions of law :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(33) without deduction of any proportionate management expenses from the gross dividend ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in directing to A.O. to adopt actual rent in respect of flat No.1500 and Municipal rateable value in respect of flat No.1600 as ALV ? 2. Appeal arises from the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1999-2000. 3. The Tribunal in so far as question-(A) is : 2 : concerned, noted that CIT(A) had followed its earlier decision for the A.Y. 1997-98. Tribunal also noted that for the A.Y.2002-2003 Tribunal had taken similar view. The revenue has accepted the order of CIT(A) for the A.Y.1997-98 and also no appeal has been preferred against the order for the A.Y. 2002-2003. Considering the above, we can find no fault with the finding adopted by the Tribunal. 4. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the Tribunal further noted that for A.Y.1997-98, CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee which order was not challenged. However, the Tribunal further noted that in the event revenue had preferred appeal for the A.Y. 1997-98 and the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, it will be open for the Assessing Officer for rectifying his order in terms set out therein. 5. Considering above, the question as framed would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)