1 itxa3081.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3081 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 ...Appellant. Vs. M/s. Ceat Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/by Mulla & Mulla for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Three questions have been raised by the revenue in this appeal which read thus : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the disallowance of 50% of license fee paid to M/s RPG Enterprises Ltd. without appreciating that the assessee could not prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the disallowance of 50% license fee 2 itxa3081.09.sxw paid to M/s RPG Ltd. without appreciating that the determination of the cost to be shared by the assessee on the basis of turnover is grossly arbitrary having no nexus with the nature of services rendered by M/s RPG Enterprises Ltd. to the assessee company? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of provision for doubtful debts for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s 115JA of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The learned Counsel for the parties state that as regards questions (a) and (b) are concerned, the similar questions were raised in the case of CIT Vs. RPG Life Science Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 4148 of 2009, which has been dismissed by this Court on 6th December, 2010. 3. For the reasons stated in the order of that appeal, questions (a) and (b) cannot be entertained. 4. As regards question (c) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the parties state that in view of amendment to section 115JA by Finance Act, 2 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1998, this question can be reconsidered accordingly. As regards question (c) is concerned, the issue is restored to the file of ITAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , J.)