1 itxa368-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.368 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Spectrum Business Support Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Ms. Vessanji with S.J. Mehta for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in his appeal, which read as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in treating the expenses incurred for updating software as revenue expenditure despite similar addition having been made in AY 1996-97 and confirmed by CIT(A) and assessee having accepted the same as capital expenditure ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing delayed payments of P.F. and ESIC ? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 2 itxa368-10 law, the ITAT is right in allowing the disallowance of claim bad debts of Rs.91,17,930/- ? 2. As regards the first question is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.2320 of 2009 has been dismissed by this Court on 5th January, 2010. 3. As regards the second question is concerned, the counsel for the revenue fairly states that the said question is answered against the Revenue by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 I.T.R. 306 (S.C.). 4. As regards the third question is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the question is answered against the revenue by the Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2010] 323 I.T.R. 397 (S.C.). In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)