[ASN] IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 976 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1661 OF 2008 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1661 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Videocon Appliances Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.F.V.Irani with Ms. Neeta Rajda for the Respodent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 30th March, 2009. PC : 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. Office objections, if any, dispensed with. INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1661 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1661 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1661 OF 2008 1. Revenue is in appeal on the following two questions. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in directing to allow deduction u/s.43B of Rs.17.4 lacs, ignoring the fact that advance given to the Excise Department cannot be treated as [ 2 ] payment under the provisions of Sec.43B of the I.T.Act 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in holding that the Assessing officer was not justified in treating the interest and finance charges of Rs.23.01 lacs as capital expenditure? 2. In so far as the first question is concerned, in respect of the very assessee itself for the assessment year 2004-2005 relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. Vs. Indo Nippon 261 ITR 275 C.I.T. Vs. Indo Nippon 261 ITR 275 C.I.T. Vs. Indo Nippon 261 ITR 275 we have not admitted the appeal in so far as that question is concerned. . In so far as the second question is concerned, in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000 in Income Tax Appeal No.77 of 2008 decided on 2.7.2009 relying on the judgment of the Supreme court in CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR ITR ITR 194 (S.C.) 194 (S.C.) 194 (S.C.) which was followed in CIT Vs. Arvind CIT Vs. Arvind CIT Vs. Arvind Polycot Polycot Polycot Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 12 (SC), Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 12 (SC), Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 12 (SC), we do not admit the appeal. 3. Considering the above, the questions of law as [ 3 ] framed would not arise. Consequently appeal dismissed. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I.REBELLO, J.)